SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE
WITNESSES
TERRY R. CARLSTROM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR
JAMES I. McDANIEL, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE LIAISON
MARILYN J. MEYERS, BUDGET ANALYST
Opening Comments From Chairman Kolbe
Mr. KOLBE. The hearing of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government will come to order. This morning we have two parts of the White House and the Executive Residence before us.
Before we begin our hearing this morning on the Executive Residence, I have a brief statement that I want to make. I will then make an additional statement regarding the witnesses that we have before us.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I certainly had no intention of coming out with both barrels loaded, maybe one of them, figuratively speaking, but certainly not both of them. Yesterday, during the White House daily press briefing, this subcommittee was issued a direct challenge; one that cannot be ignored and I take very seriously.
When questioned about our hearing today, the President's spokesman said, ''Well maybe they will cut our budget.'' He also suggested that, ''it is precisely the Congressional inquiries that generate the need for staff.''
The President of the United States is not here with us today to answer these questions, but I ask them nonetheless. Is the White House challenging us to cut their budget, cut the budget of the White House?
Does the White House find questions on the use of taxpayer dollars burdensome to them? Just so there are no ambiguities about the roles and responsibilities of the Appropriations Committee, I want to lay down just a few facts.
Fact No. 1, The Constitution vests the power of the purse in the Congress of the United States.
Fact No. 2, House Rules provide that the Committee on Appropriations has jurisdiction over the appropriation of all federal revenues.
Fact No. 3, The Appropriations Committee is authorized to conduct such studies and examinations on the organization and operation of agencies as it may deem necessary to assist in the determination of matters within its jurisdiction.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fact No. 4, The Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee is assigned jurisdiction of the Executive Office of the President; this includes both the White House Office of General Counsel and the Executive Residence of the White House.
So, I would say to the President: Mr. President, not only is it the responsibility of this subcommittee to review the operations of the White House to ensure that all federal funds are used only for the purpose for which they were appropriated, it is our obligation to the American taxpayer to do so.
I would agree with the White House spokesman that this White House has been under an inordinate amount of scrutiny by committees of Congress. I trust that the President's spokesman does not believe that I am part of any right wing conspiracy.
Let us face it, Congress has been given a lot of material to work with. Yes, there have been a lot of scandals in Administrations before this one. I think it is a fairly accurate statement to say that never have there been so many in a single Administration; from White Water, to Travelgate, to Filegate, the improper fund raising, and on and on.
In each instance, I think there are a lot more questions than we have ever gotten any answers to. As it relates to this subcommittee, my oversight of White House operations has been thwarted; particularly as it relates to political events in the Executive Residence.
I have only been Chairman of this subcommittee for a year. I have to tell you, I feel as though I have been engaged in the longest and slowest chess game in my life. Each move has been exquisitely calculated, extraordinarily slow, and aimed at depleting the resources of those on the other side.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Quite frankly, I am sick of this game. The subcommittee has a great many questions on the operations of the White House. In the event that our questions are not answered to our satisfaction, I have a simple and single message to send back to the White House.
Mr. President, the buck quite literally stops here at this subcommittee. With that, we will begin our hearing here with the Executive Residence.
We are pleased to welcome before us today personnel from the National Park Service. As my colleagues are aware, the National Park Service is testifying on behalf of the operations of the Executive Residence of the White House.
Unless there have been some significant changes to the way the Executive Residence is run, I am afraid that today the Park Service is not going to be able to answer most of the pertinent questions related to the daily operations of the residence that I will have, just as they were not able to answer them last year.
That was certainly the case last year and I requested the attendance of the Chief Usher and/or the Administrative Officer, the very competent people who run the Executive Residence.
Not surprisingly, we have been unable to secure their attendance. This is, indeed, very unfortunate. During the fiscal year 1998 appropriations hearing, the Park Service was unable to answer a very important series of questions related to overtime costs of the domestic staff, the relationship of those costs to certain work loads within the residence, and in particular, overnight guests. That hearing took place just about a year ago this time. In the interim, and as a result of the fact that we were not able to get answers to our questions, we tasked the General Accounting Office to review the operations of the Executive Residence, again, seeking answers to what we think were very simple and straightforward questions about overtime costs and the cost of overnight stays in the Executive Residence. This is not an insignificant question.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since the beginning of this Administration, we have spent $2 million on overtime in the Executive Residence. Last year, the White House revealed they had 938 overnight guests at the Executive Residence, though we still do not now how many different individuals or how many nights total people stayed in the White House.
We know for a fact that many of those guests stayed on more than one occasion. We also know from memos that we have seen from the White House that many of them were invited as a quid pro quo for political donations.
From all appearance, many of these overnight stays were part of an aggressive White House fund raising strategy. I will repeat my position on this issue. I respect the President's prerogative to host personal guests in the Executive Residence. It is the home of the President while he serves in that office, in that capacity, as President of the United States. What I do not support is the use of taxpayer dollars to support political activities.
Just as we ended the practice of federal taxpayers paying for political events in the White House in last year's bill, and established a separate accounting process to support these events, we will end the practice of using federal dollars to support political overnight stays in the Executive Residence, if that is ultimately what we discover has been going on.
Given the history of stonewalling, and of refusing to answer our questions that has characterized this Administration, it should come as no surprise that the General Accounting Office has been unable to complete their investigation of the Executive Residence.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is a fairly simple, small, and narrow task that they are undertaking. Quite simply, they have not been able to get access to the individuals and the documents they need in order to complete a reliable and comprehensive review of the Executive Residence operations.
Last November this subcommittee held a hearing on the lack of progress being made on that investigation. On the day of the hearing, the very day of the hearing, the White House faxed a letter to the General Accounting Office saying they were ready and willing to set-up the meetings to provide the information and documentation that was needed.
Since that time, since last November, two days of meetings at the White House with White House personnel have actually been scheduled for the General Accounting Office; two days of meetings in four months.
Sadly, other than the list of overnight guests, which were available from a White House press release several months earlier, not one piece of paper has been turned over to the General Accounting Office on this matter. Not one single document has been turned over.
It is clear that the White House has no intention of cooperating with this subcommittee or the General Accounting Office. I have not made up my mind exactly what steps we will take next as a result of the failure to complete this GAO investigation.
Much of that will depend on the answers that we get here today. Clearly, something is going on within the Executive Residence as it relates to overtime costs. I have a chart over here that I think paints a very fascinating picture.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year at this time, the White House told us that they would need $543,000 for domestic staff overtime. That is the fourth line there, the highest red line there. I am sorry. It is the third line from the right. The yellow line; the first yellow line.
That is what the White House said they would need for overtime in fiscal year 1997, and they would need, correspondingly, $500,000, just about the same amount for fiscal year 1998. You see those two yellow lines there.
Well, something happened between our hearing a year ago and today. Now, the White House tells us that the actual overtime for domestic staff was $193,000 in fiscal year 1997. That last red line is the last actual amount. You can see the rather dramatic decrease from 1995. So, 1996 was a presidential year. The President was on the road a lot more.
In 1997, where they projected it would go back up, it has fallen by 64-percent. So, what has happened? This is also the case for overtime in the current fiscal year. The White House is now spending, even though they asked for and we put in the budget $500,000, but they have spent only $200,000 for overtime.
Either the White House has seriously miscalculated the cost of overtime or certain activities were significantly reduced or shut down. I am not going to beat around the bush about this.
What I think that happened is in the middle of last year's appropriations cycle, the White House realized that they could not continue to host overnight guests at the same pace that they had been doing.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There was simply too much political scrutiny of this. So, it is my guess that the White House has significantly reduced the number of overnight stays, in essence, mid-way through fiscal year 1997.
As a result of shutting down those activities, overtime costs fell by more than half for fiscal year 1997 and continues to stay at a relatively low level, if you look at what they estimate for this year and what they are asking for next year, which is again at $200,000. I have no way of knowing this for a fact, but it is my guess. We would be able, of course, to make some determination of that if the White House would be cooperative and they have not been.
So, I hope that our witnesses today will be able to shed some light on this. If they cannot, we will continue to try to ask the White House to help us with that.
With that in mind, I look forward to the testimony of the Park Service. I am hoping they are going to be able to answer some of these questions.
In the event that my questions on overtime costs for domestic staff are not answered here today or subsequently before we have a bill ready to go to the Floor, I intend to put everybody on notice, everybody in this room, and everybody that could be listening, or will surely be reading this statement or the testimony that takes place here.
I will not fund a single penny of overtime for domestic staff in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill unless we get some explanation for this. Based on the way the numbers have fluctuated so dramatically, there has obviously been something that has been going on during the last year.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Until I know what we are funding and what it is for, I will not include one cent for overtime for the domestic White House staff. With that, I would recognize my colleague, Mr. Hoyer, for opening remarks that he may have before we go to our witnesses.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
I was initially going to welcome Mr. Carlstrom to the committee and congratulate him on his new post and say how much I have appreciated working with him through the years and how competent I think he is and his office is.
I want to thank you for that. Let me, however, address the comments of the Chairman and place it in context. I served in the Maryland Senate for 12 years, the last four of which I was president of the Maryland Senate.
I have served in the Congress of the United States since 1981; some 17-plus years. This is therefore close to three decades of public service. Since January of 1995, I have experienced a more partisan focused attack on political enemies than I have ever experienced in my previous service in office.
I believe there is a conspiracy against this White House, right wing or not. Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Armey, Majority Whip DeLay have all sent letters to all of the committee chairs in the last Congress directing them to focus on any matters before their committee within their jurisdiction that might embarrass or call in question opposition.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Not just political opposition, such as the White House, but opposition of senior citizens and opposition of the representatives of organized workers in this country. Indeed, they set-up a slush fund to carry out that objective. It was said on the Floor that it would be for unanticipated needs.
In fact, it has been used continually for the purposes of investigating organizations or individuals perceived by the Majority Leadership as being in opposition to them.
I have read Mr. McCurry's remarks, Mr. Chairman. I think he is absolutely correct. There is no analogous time in history, including Watergate, when a President was asked for information, bedeviled by more minutia than this President and this White House; not by this committee, but by the Government Oversight Committee, by the Senate Committee headed by Mr. D'Amato that was an absolute abysmal failure and disgrace, and by many others as well.
This White House and this President, like so many of the opponents of the leadership of this Congress, have been subjected to unprecedented historic attacks. You can tell I am angry about this. I have been on this committee since 1983.
On it during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and the Presidency of George Bush. We had disagreements. We were in the Majority. Never, underline never, was the Reagan or Bush White House subjected to the kind of onslaught that this White House has been subjected to.
Now, when it comes to budgets, never was there a threat by this committee against President Reagan or President Bush with reference to their budget. In fact, consistently, this committee reported out the request of the President of the United States. Why? Because historically since 1789, the Congress of the United States has perceived, correctly that the White House, not the Executive Department, but the White House, elected by the American Public is a co-equal branch of government.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I understand the Constitution and the statutory authority of this committee, and the responsibility this committee has to the taxpayers of the United States. We have to answer directly to them.
The President, of course, has to answer to all of the people of the United States. It has been historically the precept of this committee that because the President, like ourselves, answers directly to the American Public, that we might raise questions, focus on issues of importance, and on expenditures.
That we would not try to intimidate the President of the United States by undermining his ability to perform his duties. Now, I want to say, because there may be people listening to me who do not know the relationship between the Chairman and myself; I have the highest respect for Chairman Kolbe.
He is a man of high integrity, ability, and common sense. I will tell you that I believe that this is not an effort of this subcommittee. It is a centralized effort operating through many committees and many subcommittees.
Unfortunately, the GAO is not here before us on this issue of overtime and visitors to the White House. In 209 years, I suppose it ought to be 208 because this request was made last year, in 208 years, this question was never asked of a President of the United States.
In fact, there is no legal requirement, as far as I can determine that a President or a White House keep any records, underline any records, of visitors they choose to have to the White House. This is their home. Mr. Kolbe keeps no records that I am entitled to, of visitors to his home and I keep no records of visitors to my home to which the public is entitled.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Obviously, it is a unique home. It is an historic home. This hearing, frankly, is about the maintenance, upkeep, and preservation of an historical site; not about politics, not about partisanship, not about this President or any other president.
This hearing ought to be about how well we are maintaining that historic site so that Americans who revere the site as the center of government, from the Executive standpoint, as they revere the Capitol of the United States as the center of democracy; it is unfortunate, however, that these hearings about the White House itself and about the Executive Office have too often degenerated into partisan opportunities.
Again, I will reiterate my respect to the Chairman. We have a difference of view on the issue that he has raised and focused on with respect to visitors to the White House. The GAO is not before us, so I cannot ask them any questions.
They have specifically said they do not believe the cost can be divided out and specifically identified for visitors beyond the general cost of maintaining this historic building. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to have a respectful and close relationship; not just respectful, but a friendly relationship. You are my friend.
The President of the United States has weighty responsibilities. Mr. McCurry is absolutely correct. No President has been bedeviled the way this President has been, not by this committee, but by many, many, many committees of this Congress.
Committee-after-committee, redundant committee-after-redundant committee. A House committee, a Senate committee because, in my opinion Mr. Chairman, the Majority, when it was elected in 1994 took out, in effect, to redress all the grievances that had mounted up for that 40 years that they lamented the fact that they were not in the Majority.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are seeing the consequences of those grievances being spewed out. The present incumbent of the White House, unfortunately, is the recipient of much of those grievances and this historic get-even opportunity.
I regret that these words have been as harsh as they have, Mr. Chairman, not directed at you, but to set before the public and the record, the situation that I believe exists today as it relates to this White House and this President.
It is time for us to focus on the real issues of the day. This hearing on how well we are doing maintaining the White House, on the Executive Office, how well we are doing on having expenditures properly spent, which is your point, on the objectives of properly running the Executive Office of the President, but not on knit-picking and trying to find ways and means to embarrass and undercut the operations of the Presidency. Thank you.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Price. Do you have an opening statement?
Mr. PRICE. No.
Mr. KOLBE. Ms. Meek.
Ms. MEEK. [No audible response.]
Mr. KOLBE. Before I call on Mr. Carlstrom, let me just say I would agree with Mr. Hoyer that we will agree to disagree from time-to-time, but we will remain friends. We will have a good relationship as we have had a good working relationship all along.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I just want to clarify for the record, however, I think a statement was made and I think is a very serious charge, that this is a centrally directed operation in Congress.
I have had no discussion, not one word of discussion, with either the Speaker or the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee or their staffs about this hearing today; not one word about it, personally. Mr. Carlstrom.
STATEMENT OF MR. CARLSTROM
Mr. CARLSTROM. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, I am pleased to appear before you and present for your consideration the funding requirements for the maintenance and operation of the Executive Residence at the White House for fiscal year 1999.
The appropriation for this account for fiscal year 1998 is $8.45 million for the operation of the Executive Residence. A separate no-year account for repair and rehabilitation of the Executive Residence was established in fiscal year 1996, with initial funding for the repair of the roof of $2.2 million.
In fiscal year 1998, $200,000 was appropriated for renovation of an electrical vault for possible relocation of the laundry within the Executive Residence.
The fiscal year 1999 request is $8.691 million for the operating accounts at the Executive Residence. No funds are being requested for the no-year repair and rehabilitation account for fiscal year 1999.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The increase of $646,000 for the operating accounts includes, $375,000 for funding of the projected 3.1-percent COLA pay scheduled in January 1999, for step and merit pay increases, and the annualization of the 1998 COLA pay raise.
Additionally, $153,000 is requested to fund two FTEs, a computer network engineer to oversee the growing complexity and required modernization of the Executive Residence's computer network, and an accountant technician to track and capture costs associated with official and ceremonial functions of the Presidency, repair and execute prebilling and final billing for reimbursable functions, ensure prompt payment of reimbursable functions, and other new duties as required by Public Law 105–61.
An increase of $70,000 is requested to fund the costs of preventive cyclic and scheduled maintenance, to include replacement of equipment and materials for the water filtration system that has been in use for ten years, and for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.
An increase of $50,000 is requested for computer hardware upgrades and support of new custom-written software used to modernize the accounting functions of the Executive Residence.
An increase of $29,000 is requested for increases in the cost of official and ceremonial functions of the Presidency which is offset by reductions of $31,000 in overtime costs of the Executive Residence's full-time staff.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are happy to report that the roof repair and restoration has been completed, and that the last punch list items are being taken care of by the contractor. It was a successful project which went smoothly and quickly. We are currently in the last stages of the transfer vault relocation, and at that time the planning will begin for the possible moving of the laundry facility.
That concludes our budget requests, Mr. Chairman. Myself, Mr. McDaniel, and Ms. Meyers shall be pleased to answer any question you and Members of this Committee may have about the operation of the Executive Residence at the White House.
[The statement of Mr. Carlstrom follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
STAFFING AT THE EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Carlstrom.
Let me begin my questions with what I have been trying for a year to get to the bottom of, despite the comments of my friend and colleague, Mr. Hoyer.
I just think it is a very legitimate question. We are talking about the overtime issue. It is my understanding that there are currently 86 full-time employees within the Executive Residence, and of those about 36 are the domestic staff: butlers, housekeepers, chefs, maids, et cetera.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Am I correct to assume that these 36 staff care for the President and the First Family, as well as any other private guests that may be staying in the Executive Residence?
Mr. CARLSTROM. That is correct.
Mr. KOLBE. Can you tell me what the other 50 do or, for the record, at least provide a list of the positions and the number of FTEs that are associated with those?
I assume they are carpenters, electricians, and people like that are the maintenance of the Executive Residence.
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes, they are. They are broken down.
Mr. KOLBE. No security is involved in this.
Mr. CARLSTROM. No, there is not.
Mr. KOLBE. Okay. If you would just provide us with a list of those.
Mr. CARLSTROM. We will.
Mr. KOLBE. We will appreciate it.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes, sir.
[The White House FTE positions referred to follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
OVERTIME COSTS OF DOMESTIC STAFF
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Carlstrom, if you would look at that chart over there that I referred to earlier. Last year you testified that overtime costs for domestic staff during fiscal year 1997 would be and you were very specific, $543,271.
That is the number that is up there. Yet, your budget justification materials that were submitted last month show the actual overtime paid to employees was $193,600. That is a difference of 64-percent.
What accounts for this difference? Specifically, what work loads were anticipated in fiscal year 1997 that never took place?
Mr. CARLSTROM. I cannot respond to that officially. I would suggest that the Executive Residence provide that information for the record. I do not have that information available.
Mr. KOLBE. Well, we have been trying to get that information. The current estimate for overtime for full-time domestic personnel for 1998 is $200,000. That is, again, a 64-percent decrease from the amount you told us you would need a year ago.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Specifically, what work loads and activities were anticipated during fiscal year 1998 that are not now anticipated in the next fiscal year?
Mr. CARLSTROM. I can only surmise. I have no exact information. Again, the Executive Residence will be asked to provide that information.
Mr. KOLBE. So, you just take the amount that Executive Residence gives you and plug it in for this, for overtime? You do not have anything to do with the preparation of the number.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I do not have anything directly to do with the preparation of that number, no.
Mr. KOLBE. Last year, the White House told us that there were, as I mentioned in my earlier statement, 938 overnight guests in the Executive Residence since the beginning of the Clinton Administration. Can you tell me if this number has changed? Do you get any of that information from the Executive Residence?
Mr. CARLSTROM. No, sir. I do not have that information.
Mr. KOLBE. Do you have any idea what the total number is to-date? If 938 was last year, what is the total number as of now of overnight visitors in the residence?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARLSTROM. I have no idea what the overnight residency occupation is.
Mr. KOLBE. I am only curious as to how you prepare your budget; if you do not have any information on these things, how are those budget requests prepaid?
Mr. CARLSTROM. The budget request is based upon the amount of dollars required for the care and maintenance of the facility.
Mr. KOLBE. But it includes overtime. I mean, it is in your budget.
Mr. CARLSTROM. The overtime is a component.
Mr. KOLBE. How did you determine that number, $200,000, to come up with?
Mr. CARLSTROM. To my recollection, it would be based upon the projection of the kinds of events and occurrences that——
Mr. KOLBE. Does the White House give you a document?
Ms. MEYERS. Yes, they do.
Mr. KOLBE. Well, will you provide that document for the record as to what they give you?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MEYERS. I will request that of the Executive Residence, yes.
[The information referred to follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. KOLBE. It would seem to me to be a legitimate thing to know how you come up with this figure.
Ms. MEYERS. It is based on historical precedence, but the problem is——
Mr. KOLBE. Something is different historically here. That is what I am trying to get to the bottom of.
Ms. MEYERS. So much of it is determined upon world events, local events. If there is a crisis, for instance, during the Gulf War, everybody, the whole staff, all 86 of them work 24 hours a day.
If you are having different things happening, it is very hard to estimate from the beginning as to exactly what it is going to be. That is why we kept it down this year rather than taking it way back up as it had been in prior years, but that is provided to me by the Executive Residence Administrative Office.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. I am sorry, would you repeat? It was taken down, why?
Ms. MEYERS. Because it had been leveling off.
Mr. KOLBE. It certainly was not through 1995 leveling off.
Ms. MEYERS. Are we speaking of just the domestic staff or are we speaking of——
Mr. KOLBE. This is the overtime for the domestic staff; just the domestic staff there.
Ms. MEYERS. Right.
Mr. KOLBE. Obviously, something has changed. That is what I am trying to get to the bottom of. Maybe you can help. You gave a useful piece of information there that I am surprised to hear that during a crisis, like the Gulf Crisis, all of the maids and everybody works 24-hours a day.
Ms. MEYERS. They are on-call 24 hours a day.
Mr. KOLBE. On-call or at work? Is it overtime if they are on-call?
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MEYERS. No, it is not.
Mr. KOLBE. Okay.
Ms. MEYERS. They all work 40 hours, plus anything over that would obviously be overtime.
Mr. KOLBE. Right, right. I am not sure I know why somebody that is a maid would be required for extra hours during that time.
Ms. MEYERS. Well, there are many people walking around the White House and all of that needs to be taken care of.
STAFFING PATTERNS AT EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE
Mr. KOLBE. Let me just ask you this. I would like some information from you about what the normal staffing pattern would be on an average when the Executive Residence is occupied by the President and the First Family. For example, are there three 8-hour shifts for personnel, White House Executive Residence personnel?
Mr. CARLSTROM. I can respond to that, Mr. Congressman.
The staff members, all of them, work a 40-hour week. That may run through Monday to a Friday, or from a Tuesday to a Sunday, or any combination. This is similar to what we do in the National Park Service when it comes to managing and taking care of our parks.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Executive Residence is staffed seven days a week, day time and into the evening, on regular time. There is one shift of maids and butlers that come on early in the morning to take care of preparation for the 1.1 million visitors that come through the White House every year.
That is one shift, or an 8-hour shift, if you would want to refer to it that way. The second shift comes on in the afternoon and begins the clean-up, after the visitors have left, and prepares the White House for the functions that are to occur either for the First Family and/or for special events in the evening hours. Those are the two shifts that occur which relate to a daily function.
It is staffed seven days a week for 24-hours by the operating engineers. There are two employees on duty at all times in case there are any problems with the mechanical nature of the heating, ventilation, or other systems in the White House.
Much of the scheduling depends on the amount of time that the First Family is in the Executive Residence. This Family spends more time at the Executive Residence than has been true in previous Administrations. That could account for some of the increased cost that you see. That is my editorial.
There are some things that have happened that have already been alluded to in world events in past Administrations. That was during the Bush Administration when the Gulf War was occurring.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All members of the staff in all of the different divisions, some of them were on duty for 24-hours a day and were on-call.
I would just like to emphasize one other thing, that the Executive Residence is first and foremost a home and that is what the budget deals with. How we take care of the White House, its historical character, and its importance to the American people.
Mr. KOLBE. Well, I have taken more than my time. Let me just say that, first of all, that I would concur with your statement that this President has spent more time in the Executive Residence. He has not used Camp David as much.
None of that, however, explains this dramatic, more than 50-percent, or 64-percent, almost a two-thirds decrease in the amount of overtime. That is what we are not able to get to the bottom of. I may come back with some other questions on that. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am constrained to observe that I do not know how much it costs to operate Air Force One, but I would venture to say to fly back and forth to Rancho Mirage in California was at least a $250,000 item every weekend.
I have no criticism of that at all, but this President does spend a lot of weekends in the White House. I happen to know that and that he does not spend much time at Camp David. He does not have another place. So, this is his home.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One flight to California would eat up that overtime, it seems to me. Having said that, Mr. Carlstrom, how long have you been with this office?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Do you mean the National Park Service?
Mr. HOYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I have been with the National Park Service since 1972.
Mr. HOYER. Since 1972. That was the Nixon Administration.
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes. You are giving me a history lesson, yes.
PAST TREATMENT OF BUDGET HEARINGS
Mr. HOYER. I want to ask you this question. To your knowledge, to the extent of your knowledge, has the White House budget been treated differently since 1993 than it was from 1972 to 1993?
Mr. CARLSTROM. You said the National Park Service. I was not associated with the White House specifically at that time.
Mr. HOYER. That is why I said ''to your knowledge.''
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARLSTROM. No.
Mr. HOYER. I do not know how long your history goes back, but the point of my question is, has this White House budget been treated any differently than prior White House budgets to your knowledge?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Jim McDaniel has been around a little longer than I have and dealt with it on a personal basis.
Mr. HOYER. Fine, then I will ask Mr. McDaniel.
What I am simply trying to find out, obviously, is whether there is something unusual about how this budget is handled than prior budgets.
Mr. MCDANIEL. I, too, Mr. Hoyer, have been associated with the National Park Service for many years. I joined in 1967 as a Park Ranger in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. In 1971, I became a part of the White House Liaison Operation and have either been supporting the Park Service officials who have testified at this hearing or have been at this hearing since 1971.
The simple answer to your question, Mr. Hoyer, is yes, there is a difference.
Mr. HOYER. What is that difference?
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCDANIEL. In the years prior, this hearing and the Senate hearing were much less formal. Certainly, I had not seen before that time any media coverage of the hearings.
Mr. HOYER. Never?
Mr. MCDANIEL. Never.
Mr. HOYER. The Appropriations Committee did not have a press arm prior to 1995, I think. Go ahead, Mr. McDaniel.
Mr. MCDANIEL. The tone of the hearing was much more conversational; much less formal. There was more presentation. I can remember several times when the Members themselves and their staff actually came to the White House, climbed the scaffolding to look at the exterior restoration work in progress.
There was a very strong focus on the historic preservation of the White House. So, there was more of, I think, more details into the maintenance and the construction needs and the infrastructure needs of the White House.
Mr. HOYER. Am I correct, Mr. McDaniel, that is in fact what you focus on? I do not mean you, personally, but the Park Service focuses on the maintenance and preservation of the home of the President, which is also one of America's and the world's most historic sites.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. In 1961, during the Kennedy Administration, when a public law was passed that more fully defined the role of the National Park Service at the White House, there was a very strong emphasis on historical preservation and the museum aspects of the White House. That is the reason why we are there.
Mr. HOYER. I understand. The committees, the Republicans, and Democrats, and Presidents focused on in these hearings the White House itself.
Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes.
Mr. HOYER. The building, in other words.
Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you. Now, you have been there since 1971. Has the question of overtime of the domestic staff ever come up prior to last year, to your knowledge?
Mr. MCDANIEL. Not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. HOYER. Has the issue of whether or not the President had one, or two, or ten visitors to the White House ever come up to your knowledge?
Mr. MCDANIEL. No, it has not.
Mr. HOYER. So, since 1971, to your knowledge, this is the first time this issue has been raised by the committee?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes.
Mr. HOYER. Now, Mr. Carlstrom, let me ask you something. In a letter to the committee dated March 9th, Mr. Ruff, counsel to the President, said, ''Accordingly, we will be pleased to receive your questions on matters,'' this was to the Chairman, ''about which you have concerns in advance of the hearing to ensure that, to the extent appropriate, National Park Service personnel are prepared to address these questions.''
Mr. Carlstrom, the question I ask you, do you know whether Mr. Ruff received any questions prior to your appearance here and did you have the opportunity to talk to them about questions that were of interest?
Mr. CARLSTROM. No, not to my knowledge or Ms. Meyers who handles all of those kinds of correspondence.
OVERTIME
Mr. HOYER. Ms. Meyers, last question. Clearly, the overtime about which I have limited knowledge, at best, other than our discussions here, relates to the particular demands on the White House from time-to-time that can be caused by crisis, domestic or international, or challenges that may not have been anticipated which would require longer hours for staff, and the President, and the White House staff itself. Am I correct? Is that what you are saying?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. MEYERS. That is correct.
Mr. HOYER. So that, the overtime is not necessarily related to visitors that the President might have at the White House, but visitors in his non-official capacity, if you will, as his home, as much as it would be related to the White House resulting from the Office of the President, the official duties of the President of the United States. Is that correct?
Ms. MEYERS. That is correct.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I may have some additional questions.
Mr. KOLBE. Yes. We will have another round.
Just one very quick question before I yield to Ms. Meek. In that response, Mr. McDaniel, to something you said about the differences in the hearings. Would you tell me White House or not the preservation and other maintenance needs at the White House have not been met by this subcommittee since 1995?
Mr. MCDANIEL. Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. Ms. Meek.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. Yes.
Mr. HOYER. Might I just respond. I certainly did not imply that nor did I mean it and want to make it clear that I think you and I, as your predecessor, both are very concerned about the maintenance and preservation of the White House.
I did not mean to imply that. What I did mean to imply was that the character of this hearing is an historic precedent. Ms. Meek.
STATEMENT OF MS. MEEK
Ms. MEEK. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any direct questions for the staff at the White House at this point. I do have a concern and that is the focus on the domestic staff of the White House in that when an environment is created that focuses on, I would say, the lower rung, even though I would hate to put it in that category, of any kind of entity, it creates for me a problem.
In that when we begin to look at the domestic staff and their overtime pay, and question whether or not it is a viable kind of expenditure, I have a strong concern about that. I will be watching this throughout this subcommittee, being sure that there is an essence of fairness throughout the hearing on this particular account.
At this time, I feel very strangely touched by what I hear here this morning, the discourse, the dialogue, the way it is going. I would hope I would learn more about how the White House operates, how you run that residence.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of the problems that exist for you are the kinds of things that we as a committee should be concerned about. I feel that last session I sat on this committee for the first time.
We did get into some of the questions which have been asked again here this morning. I do not think there will ever be any answers for those questions. There is not any instrument that will measure what we purport to measure here this morning.
So, I will be watching that as a committee Member here. I will have questions as I listen more and more to the dialogue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Ms. Meek. Mr. Price.
REIMBURSABLE FUNCTIONS
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Director, thank you for being here this morning. You have furnished a listing, as you did last year, of reimbursable official and ceremonial functions in the White House and also reimbursable political events. Presumably, those will be reprinted in the record as they were last year.
I wonder if you could share your observations with us as to how the list we discussed last year, particularly the rather long turn around time for the reimbursement of some of these events, compares with the record you furnished us this year.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are there any noteworthy trends either in terms of the composition of these lists, the lengths of these lists and/or the turn around time for reimbursement?
Mr. CARLSTROM. I just saw these lists a week ago, I guess. One thing that impressed me was, I have to admit, last time around there were some two or three-year gaps between events and payments.
As I look at this list in any category of the reimbursable official and ceremonial functions, or the political functions, or the nonreimbursable official and ceremonial functions, the gap has closed in terms of the payment time. That is my observation.
Mr. PRICE. Just perusing the list quickly, it would appear on the reimbursable official and ceremonial events, which number, what would you say?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Fifty.
Mr. PRICE. Fifty. There are, according to my count, about four in which the reimbursement time was six months or more. So, that would seem to bear out what you are saying, that the reimbursement time has been rather dramatically shortened.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I counted two this morning, but you are undoubtedly right. That would be about 2-percent, I guess.
Mr. PRICE. Actually, no. I think you are right. I think a couple of mine come in at less than six months.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARLSTROM. Down to one-percent.
Mr. PRICE. What about the length of the list, especially on the political events. That is a much shorter list.
Mr. CARLSTROM. Well, you are asking me for my observation. The first time I looked at it, I was surprised that there were only five of those events listed.
Mr. PRICE. Again, the reimbursement times have been dramatically shortened.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I think dramatically shortened because of the kind of testimony that we gave last year and the Executive Residence has responded by implementing a much better system of accountability.
Mr. PRICE. Good. Lest we forget what the bottom line in this hearing is, it is a budget request; a budget request for next year for operating accounts at the Executive Residence. I want to focus on the increase you are requesting in those accounts—an increase of $646,000. Is that right?
INCREASES TO BUDGET
Mr. CARLSTROM. That is correct, sir.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PRICE. How does that increase break down?
Mr. CARLSTROM. I can provide it for the record, since our time has been shortened, or I can go through it item-by-item.
Mr. PRICE. Well, the bulk is for the 3.1-percent COLA pay raise. Is that correct?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes; the fixed increases.
Mr. PRICE. All right. And $153,000 for two FTEs.
Mr. CARLSTROM. That is correct.
Mr. PRICE. What are those? How are those positions going to be utilized?
Mr. CARLSTROM. It goes back to the public law that was enacted last year that requires a better accountability system. As we move forward with implementation of that system, it will require an accountant that will track the bills that are provided on a monthly basis.
It will also provide for a computer technician or a computer engineer, if you will, and provide for a computer system, a new system, that will cost approximately $50,000.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I can go through what the current accounting office of one person does and then illustrate to you the additional duties that are going to be performed by that one person, or if you would like, I can provide it for the record.
Mr. PRICE. Well, I think providing a more detailed account for the record would be helpful.
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Executive Residence has an Accounting staff of one person. The Accountant in the past has been responsible for capturing all costs associated with Official and Ceremonial Functions of the President, preparation of the detailed file for each function, preparation of bills for reimbursable functions, tracking the payments of reimbursable functions, preparation of all Service by Agreement payment vouchers and assisting the Administrative Officer in budget planning and execution.
The requirements in the FY98 budget legislation require additional duties to be performed by the Accountant Office. The Executive Residence has had to set up the $25,000 revolving fund for functions sponsored by the National Political Party of the President which must be tracked and coordinated with the National Park Service Finance Office. Estimates for all functions are now provided so that prepayment can be collected as required by the new law coordinated with the Social Office and Administration Officials. The new prepayments tracked and reconciled with the actual costs of the function resulting in a second billing for the issuance of a refund. The new law requires that billing for a function be prepared within 60 days from the billing date. If necessary, the National Park Service must be notified to impose late fees and penalties for late payments. Detailed reports must be maintained on the payment statistics for all reimbursable functions and sent to congress annually. These new tasks along with assisting the Administrative Officer and Accountant with existing job requirements justify the addition of this position.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PRICE. In relation to our previous discussion, though, is it not true that a good portion of these duties will involve the billing for reimbursable functions to ensure prompt and accurate repayment?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes, there will.
Mr. PRICE. So, there should be some continuation of the rather hopeful trend we have seen already in terms of complete and prompt reimbursement.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I would definitely anticipate that.
Mr. PRICE. The bottom line is, this is basically a flat budget request. You are requesting two additional positions, but for the most part this is a continuation of last year's level of funding.
Mr. CARLSTROM. That is correct, sir.
Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Maybe I can try to get a couple of questions in there before we go break here. Mr. McDaniel, how many years have you been appearing before this subcommittee?
Mr. MCDANIEL. Since 1983.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. You made the comment that no one has ever asked about political events. Just to refresh your memory, I think if you go back and look at the record in 1993 or 1994, I do not know which year it was, Ms. Pelosi asked several questions about political events in the White House by the previous Administration.
Mr. MCDANIEL. I am sure the Chairman is correct, sir.
COST OF POLITICAL EVENTS
Mr. KOLBE. So, it is not an unknown thing for that to happen. Let me leave the domestic staff for the moment, and go over to the political events that were asked about a moment ago here.
In documents that you have given us, you have showed there were only four reimbursable political events. This is a huge decrease from previous years. For example, in 1995, there were 46 events for a total cost of $585,000. In 1997, there were 73 events; $639,000.
I know the political events are scheduled by the social secretary, but have they provided you or do you have any explanation for what the tremendous drop in the number of political events in the White House? It looks for all practical purposes like it has virtually been stopped.
Mr. CARLSTROM. No, I do not. As you say, the social secretary makes determinations. The Executive Residence, responds and provides services necessary to carry them out. I could make some of my own observations, but I do not know whether they are correct, sir; not an election year.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. No, that does not quite work because you go back to 1993. It does not jive with that. Let me get to the real issue here. In 1996, there were 73 reimbursable political events; forgetting the domestic staff.
We are now talking about reimbursable events and overtime costs for that, with the total overtime costs of $123,000. Last year, there were four political events with a total reimbursable time cost of $149,000. Can you tell me, are they broken down that those four events actually cost $149,000?
Mr. CARLSTROM. I cannot say that it does.
Mr. KOLBE. In overtime.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I cannot say that it does, but we can certainly provide for the record what that information would be.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the lawyer in me is constrained to say that you are posing a question which adopts a premise which may or may not be true, in that the overtime is in fact related to those events as opposed to——
Mr. KOLBE. No. It is. I mean it specifically is related to those events; reimbursement for those events.
Mr. HOYER. Do we have such a list? We can ask the Executive Residence to provide it.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. That is what is puzzling. I do not understand.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I do not have it.
Mr. KOLBE. I do not understand why four are costing actually more than 73. I am not making any charge here. There is no rational explanation for this.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I do not know the cost of the 73 events. If I added these events up, I could come up with a cost.
Mr. KOLBE. These are just overtime costs. This is not the total reimbursable cost. This is the overtime cost.
Mr. CARLSTROM. But as a part of that total cost, then some of it is overtime. I do not know what that percentage is. Nor, do I know what the 73 events were back in, what year was it, 1996?
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, 1996.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I do not know what the total of that is and what proportion would be overtime or why. I would assume the type of event probably had something to do with the overtime.
Mr. KOLBE. Well, again, it would be helpful if we had some information; if the White House would assist us with this.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes, sir.
STAFF WORKING OFF-SITE
Mr. KOLBE. Something odd is happening here. Again, I am making no allegations or charges here, but something odd has happened. One possible explanation is that these events have been moved off the White House grounds, so they are not reimbursable, but they are being supported by White House staff. That would not normally be the case; would it? The White House staff would be used at a hotel function?
Mr. CARLSTROM. No, sir.
Mr. KOLBE. You have no explanation then for why four cost more than 73 cost in overtime.
Mr. CARLSTROM. I gave you the best observations I can.
Mr. KOLBE. We have only four minutes. We had better be on our way. We will come back. We will recess. We have two votes; this vote immediately followed by one other. Then we will have a long period of time. So, we will resume as soon as we come back. The committee will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. The subcommittee will resume its hearing. My understanding is we have an hour and a half until about the next vote. So, we hope to finish both parts of this hearing so that we will have time this afternoon for the Office of Management and Budget.
ADDITIONAL FTE FOR REIMBURSABLE EVENTS
I just have one final question, before we had the recess, on this issue of the reimbursable political expenses. I am wondering if you can tell us about the need. If there are only four reimbursable political events, why is there a need for one full-time additional employee—an accounting technician—to track these events?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Right.
Mr. KOLBE. I am wondering what we need that person for.
Mr. CARLSTROM. Well, it is not just the political events.
Mr. KOLBE. It is all reimbursable events?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes.
Mr. KOLBE. I have a question on that. I do not have that number. What is the number? Okay, fiscal year 1997 was 50 of those events. Is that correct? Sorry; the non-political.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CARLSTROM. Reimbursable official and ceremonial functions of the President. I counted them up. That is my count, 50.
Mr. KOLBE. Well, we can both count the same. So, this individual is needed for both. The fact is that the number of political events dropped so dramatically to only four. So, you have a total of 54 events. That still does not cause the White House or you to question whether or not you need this full-time additional individual for tracking those?
Mr. CARLSTROM. No. There are so many other duties that this person is responsible for. The accounting office is just one, it does not cause me to question this request. It is something that is needed.
Mr. KOLBE. Okay. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. To make the point that the reimbursables, therefore, incorporate not just political events. They are not segregated in that sense. These are all reimbursable events, whether by so-called political, that is to say, partisan organizations as well as the American Legion or the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. CARLSTROM. The non-political.
Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes, sir.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOYER. Let me ask you a question to tread on the substance that Mr. Price pursued. Tell us, if you will, is the White House physically in good shape?
PHYSICAL CONDITION OF EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE
Mr. CARLSTROM. Well, we have done a considerable amount of work, going back to the removal of the paint and repainting, repointing all of the brick work. That work was done over the last ten years, Jim.
Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes.
Mr. CARLSTROM. Roughly. That did a lot to stabilize the House itself; 132 rooms in the historic section. We have done a lot of work on the sash and windows. We have sealed many of those areas, if not all of them. So that we have improved the tightness of the House, if you will, and improved the condition of the wood around the historic window panes and other window projects.
We have completed the roof, as I indicated, which was a major event that will prevent further deterioration on the interior of the structure. The heating-ventilation-air-conditioning system is nearing completion after many years.
It took many years because it was determined some years ago not to move the Family out of the residence. So, we had to work around them, so to speak. We have done a lot of work on the interior, and keeping it as it is, and as it is intended to be a museum, and of museum character and quality.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, the assessment is up-to-date with the work that is ongoing. It is improving. As to whether or not it is in good shape, Jim, I would defer to you on that. There may be other projects that are necessary now. We have shown an interest in establishing a permanent repair/rehab account, if you will, for the White House to ensure that it stays in that condition. So, Jim, you may want to allude on that.
Mr. MCDANIEL. Mr. Hoyer, I think this committee in the past and the present has made absolutely sure that we focus our energies on making sure that we have a White House that is in good condition for the people of this country to visit and to be proud of as a symbol.
Between the work of this committee and your colleagues who support the National Park Service, several projects have been completed. We now have actually come to the point where this summer we will be providing to the public a draft plan, a 20-year master plan, for the White House and the parks around the White House to take this powerful symbol of our democratic form of government into the next millennium.
Mr. HOYER. To reiterate, Mr. McDaniel, the focus of the Park Service has primarily been to look after the physical well being and maintenance of the White House and its grounds. Am I correct?
Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOYER. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. Ms. Meek.
Ms. MEEK. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Price.
Mr. PRICE. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Istook.
Mr. ISTOOK. No questions.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Forbes.
Mr. FORBES. No questions.
Mr. KOLBE. I have some other questions, but I will submit them for the record.
I have a few questions dealing with the reimbursable political activities as it relates to the legislation last year requiring the—well, let me just ask at least one of these here.
Mr. Carlstrom, I was very pleased to hear you say that as the result of these provisions, that accountability has been improved. I think this subcommittee can take some credit for doing that by requiring these pre-payment procedures.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The procedure we required is that these be prepaid in advance. We have a deposit on-hand from the political parties in order to cover those. Let me just ask, to your knowledge, has that deposit been received?
Mr. CARLSTROM. Yes, it has.
Mr. KOLBE. It has been received, okay. Has any of it been used as a revolving fund yet or has it all been expended? Is there still some in that deposit account?
Mr. CARLSTROM. I believe it was used once and is in the process of being replaced.
Mr. KOLBE. Being replaced.
Ms. MEYERS. It has been replaced.
Mr. CARLSTROM. It has been replaced.
Mr. KOLBE. Exactly what we intended it to do. I am delighted to see that. I will have a few other questions for the record on that.
With that then, we thank you for your participation here today. I want to say in closing, that the frustration that I expressed earlier was certainly not directed to the Park Service, which I think does an extraordinarily competent job.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope you will realize that, as uncomfortable as it may seem to you today my frustration is directed at the White House personnel who I believe have not been very helpful and very clearly as the GAO has made it clear, has not been terribly helpful in trying to get this information that we have asked them to do.
It is not directed at you personally. I thank you very much for your participation today. Thank you. With that, we will dismiss this panel. We will go to the next.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Thursday, March 12, 1998.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AGENCIES
WITNESS
ADA L. POSEY, DIRECTOR
Introduction
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you, Ms. Posey. If you all will take your seats please, we would like to get started here. We are behind schedule, obviously. We appreciate your being with us here.
I am pleased to welcome back Ada Posey to this Subcommittee. Ms. Posey will be testifying on the fiscal year 1999 appropriation request for nine separate accounts that make up the Executive Office of the President that is funded through this Appropriation Subcommittee, excluding the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the various programs funded by ONDCP.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Executive Office of the President is requesting a total of $216.6 million for the coming year, an increase of $16.7 million or 8.4 percent. Almost all of the increase is targeted to the Office of Administration where the President is requesting $40.5 million.
That is an increase of more than 40 percent. In general, although this is a current services budget, almost all of the funds are targeted to computer modernization; more specifically, the renovation and replacement of computer systems to make them Y2K or year 2000 compliant.
Ms. Posey, there really is not any ambiguity at all or should not be about how this Subcommittee feels about the computer modernization efforts. We are sticklers and we have been with all of the agencies that come under our jurisdiction for the details. Frankly, we have had the wool pulled over our eyes on a couple of occasions by some of the larger agencies. We are determined that this will not happen again.
We are also determined, to the extent that we can make a difference, to make sure that every agency of the Federal Government is Y2K compliant.
In this regard, although I have been extremely frustrated with the foot dragging on developing a modernization blue print for the White House, I have reviewed the information technology architecture that you submitted to the Committee, just a few days ago, February 28th.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Quite frankly, I am very pleased with the progress that this shows. I just wish it had not taken so long; two years of fencing off the resources to get your attention on this. Having said that, I also do see some gaps in the architecture.
In particular, I am concerned about the lack of details on the costs of this endeavor, as well as the mechanism and processes that are in place to assure that the top management is giving this project the attention it needs.
If there is one lesson we have learned on this Subcommittee, it is that no modernization effort will succeed, no matter how big or small, unless top management is committed to it.
Over the 1995 to 1997 period, this Subcommittee has given the White House $16.5 million for ADP purchases. That does not include the $3.6 million provided last year.
This request has jumped to $12.2 million for the coming year. Ms. Posey, you have made progress, but we are not there yet. My concern is that we may not be ready to spend the $12.2 million in the way that ensures that the White House has information technology it needs to meet its fundamental business requirements.
I say that, not as a technological expert, but as one who has expressed these concerns with other agencies and has gotten more involved in this issue, and certainly have been learning something about it.
I look forward to hearing your testimony. I certainly promise that I am going to keep an open mind. You have a fair shot at convincing me that the $12.2 million is not going to be wasted.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the recent activities surrounding the Independent Counsel's investigation has given me, and I know other Members of this Subcommittee, serious concern about the way in which the White House Office of General Counsel is being used to provide for the private defense of the President.
Given that federal funds are available only for the support of the President as he meets his official, ceremonial, and statutory responsibility, I hope, certainly, that this is not the case. But I think many Members of this Subcommittee will look forward to hearing your clarification on this matter.
Mr. KOLBE. Let me recognize Mr. Hoyer for opening remarks. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Well, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome Ms. Posey back to the Committee and her colleagues, Mr. Lindsey, and Ms. Crabtree, and others. She has a difficult job and very much in the spotlight.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BUDGET
Ms. Posey is testifying in support of nine accounts relating to the operation of the Executive Office with a total request of $112.4 million, which excludes, of course, the Executive Residence.
This is a budget hearing. I certainly hope that we can review this funding request with objectivity and leave the political discussions to other more appropriate forum.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Posey, as I look down this chart of accounts, it appears that, as the Chairman has pointed out, with the exception of the $12 million for your needed computer modernization expenses, which as the Chairman rightly points out, this committee has been very concerned about not just with respect to the White House, but with respect to all federal agencies, particularly as it relates to the Y2K problem, which is endemic, not only in the public sector, but in the private sector as well your operational increases are about at inflation. I want to say that I think the Administration has done very well in keeping its costs in line within the White House. The impact on the White House of technological changes, obviously, in the area of electronic communications, I am amazed that you are able to keep most of your operational increases beyond that in check.
I believe that it is absolutely imperative that we give the Executive Office of the President adequate resources to do its job. These appropriations must provide high quality support, maintaining and upgrading a sound infrastructure that meets the needs of the Presidency.
The President is the Executive of all the people. Once elected, he has the awesome responsibility of presenting the case of the United States to the world, as well as projecting the domestic agenda of the nation. I look forward to your testimony and to any further explanations that you have to give. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. Let me ask any other Members if they have opening statements. Mr. Livingston.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I have to express a concern I have. If I may take this opportunity to do it, I would appreciate it. We are glad to have you.
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
We do not wish, Ms. Posey and others, to bear down on the messenger. The fact is you are here and so are we. We have some questions to ask that concern us greatly. There has been a good bit in the press and, in the words of the Washington Times, about the fact that the Counsel's Office in the White House has become the largest and most expensive West Wing legal operation in history.
It now stands at 34 attorneys, para-legals, and researchers, which is about 10 percent of the total White House salary budget of $24.3 million. I would simply preface my comments with the question that I hope you will address in your opening remarks.
The question is how do you and the White House define the line between the use of legal services with taxpayers' funds: (a) for official duties of the President and the First Lady, and (b) as distinguished from the personal benefit of the President and the First Lady?
It is a very serious question. In fact, it is based on allegations in the press that members of the Counsel's Office have operated as a sort of taxpayer-funded private legal service to the President and the First Lady.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Highlighted by Council Bernard Nausbaum, when he and former Deputy Council Vincent Foster, spent his time at the White House working on the Clinton taxes and White Water issues, and then subsequently died.
Mr. Nausbaum refused to allow high ranking Justice Department Officials to participate in going through the papers that Mr. Foster left behind.
Secondly, that Mr. Nausbaum's signature was on a White House request to the FBI for the private background files of ousted White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale, and on requests for some 900 other confidential FBI files of former Republican White House staffers. That one, I will come back to.
Next, Counsel Jack Quinn; the Counsel's Office worked to keep damaging documents from Congressional committees investigating Whitewater and the Travel Office scandal. That obviously even went so far as to doctor titles of memos, according to the Washington Times, memos that he was forced to hand over to Congress so as to remove references to Mrs. Clinton's involvement in Travelgate.
That the Counsel's Office also advised and debriefed Mrs. Clinton on her appearance before the Grand Jury to discuss her law firm billing records that had disappeared and reappeared two years later after being subpoenaed.
That Counsel, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, pushed claims of attorney/client privilege, which were rejected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. That the Counsel's Office, under Charles Ruff, has been deeply involved in Clinton's full court press against Mr. Starr's investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair and on and on.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Likewise, White House tax dollars have not paid the salaries of Mickey Cantor, who is currently the political advisor, along with Harold Icky's and Harry Tomlinson's. They are not paying their salaries, but the White House is providing office space and secretaries to aid them at the behest of the taxpayer. Like, Mr. Sidney Blumenthall, who was recently in the press condemning his treatment as a representative of the press, is a paid employee of the White House, paid for by taxpayer's dollars.
Presumably using his salary, his tax dollars that he is spending and absorbing, and using for his own sustenance to launch his attack described by James Carville as open on Mr. Starr and his aides.
Then when you combine the fact that they have got these some 34 lawyers on the payroll, which is unprecedented when it is compared to previous Presidents', to this whole issue of files that were gotten by the White House from the FBI.
The man in charge of security in the White House, Craig Livingston was presumably perusing those files. We still do not know who hired him.
When you add that to the fact that the President's private defense team, whether paid for by the taxpayers or otherwise, has been described by the President's friend, Dick Morris, as a rag-tag band of private investigators, or at least he described the people that they hired a rag-tag band of private investigators, to allegedly dig dirt up on the President's opponents.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That federal tax dollars went to a group called Investigative Group International, IGI, which is run by a fellow by the name of Terry Lindsey, the founder and chairman, who served as an assistant chief counsel in the Senate Watergate Committee.
He was criticized last year as co-authoring a proposal to dig up dirt on Senator Don Nichols and his wife. When you consider that the people who have been associated with IGI have been people who have come and gone from the Clinton Administration in one official capacity or another, including Larry Potts, a former FBI official who was in charge of the Ruby Ridge Incident, Ricky Sideman, a person who was currently at the Justice Department in a high-ranking position who was in charge of the efforts to derail the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas a few years ago. She is a former IGI senior investigator. Howard Schapiro was the chief counsel to the FBI. Brook Sheer who has served as an aide to Hillary Clinton on the 1992 Campaign and is a former member of IGI.
Coty Sheer, who is Brook Sheer's twin brother, was at the White House or had back channel connections to the White House. Ann Lazuto, former IGI employee who is now spokesman for the National Security Council.
You read the accounts that IGI has been instrumental in digging up background information on a potential enemy's list of the Administration. That they are described by Dick Morris as being the White House secret police. Then I have to come to the conclusion that taxpayers dollars have been misused, misappropriated, misspent, and diverted for the purposes of playing politics at the behest of the White House rather than conducting official responsibilities at the behest of the United States taxpayer.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are not talking about small change. If we are talking about the salaries for 34 attorneys, para-legals, and researchers, plus the secretaries, the office space, and all that goes into maintain those people. We are talking about serious money used by this Administration for its own purposes, for its purposes other than that for which the President of the United States was elected to office.
Ms. Posey, I am concerned about that. I apologize to the Committee for taking the time to describe my concerns, but I share Dick Morris' fear that taxpayers' money is being used to fund an investigation squad to go after enemies of this White House. That has to stop. It has to stop immediately. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you Mr. Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Hoyer, briefly, then let us get to Ms. Posey.
WALKER AND NUSSLE MEMORANDUM
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I respect the Chairman of our Committee's observations. Earlier, I referenced a memorandum, about as to why expenses are incurred. I want to say at the outset that I think it was one of the great mistakes of this Administration to hire Dick Morris for anything. It was a great mistake for the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Trent Lott, to hire him for anything.
I would not rely on the representation of Dick Morris if my life depended on it very frankly. My opinion of him could not be much lower than it is. Having said that, I want to reference a memorandum, a memorandum to all House full and subcommittee chairmen.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This memorandum is dated April 23, 1996. All of the recipients of this were Republican leaders at the House of Representatives. It is from Bob Walker and Jim Nussle, two close allies of the Speaker and leaders of his.
On behalf of the House leadership, we have been asked to call all committees for information that you already have on three subjects listed below. We are compiling information for packaging and presentation to the leadership for determining the agenda.
You are a tremendous source for this project. The source for this project is taxpayer-paid staff of committees of the Congress of the United States. In this case, the Majority staff of the Congress of the United States.
The subjects are waste, fraud, and abuse in the Clinton Administration, influences of Washington labor union bosses/corruption, and examples of dishonesty or ethical lapses in the Clinton Administration. Please have your staff, I am presuming this is to the committees, and therefore it is taxpayer staff, review pertinent GAO reports, Inspector General reports, or committee investigative materials, or newspaper articles.
The Washington Times has been cited; a great friend of this Administration as we all know, or departments and agencies within your jurisdiction that expose anecdotes that amplify these areas.
Send your material to Jenny Thomas, H–226, U.S. Capitol or fax to 6116. We need this information as soon as possible; no later than the close of business April 26th. I would say to the Chairman that I understand his concern. I am sure that he was very concerned about this as well.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To think that taxpayers funds would be spent by the House of Representatives to try to get, and I use that term advisedly, the President, the First Lady, and this White House. I am not talking about the Administration or Executive Department of Government. I am talking about this President, this First Lady, and this White House.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. To you, sir?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. For just one comment. I appreciate the Gentleman yielding. I would just say that I think the Gentleman has amply pointed out that that is not a very wise memo. In fact, that is probably a pretty dumb memo. It does not negate any of the facts to which I have just alleged.
Mr. KOLBE. With that, we are going to get on with the hearing here. Ms. Posey, we will call on you for an opening statement and hope that you can keep it as brief as possibly. Obviously, as always, the full statement gets put in the record. I know Members will have many questions here.
SUMMARY STATEMENT—ADA POSEY
Ms. POSEY. Certainly. I will abbreviate my comments.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, again, and Members of this Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you once again to present fiscal year 1999 budget requests for the Executive Office of the President and accounts.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to start by telling you why I am so thankful that I have the opportunity to serve in the EOP, as we call it, and to enable the Executive Office of the President to face the challenges and seize the opportunities presented to us by these ever changing times caused by daily advances in technology associated with the information age.
Such challenges remind me of my grandmother, Mrs. Ada Barryman who was recently recognized by this Congress in the Congressional Record when the Honorable Louis Stokes acknowledged her as the first African American to be appointed to the Ohio State Housing Board in the 1940s.
She was born in 1910 in Troy, Alabama. When she was young, her family fled to Ohio to escape the segregation of the south. She resided in Warren, Ohio for 45 years and is credited with founding the Warren Chapter of the NAACP, as well as serving as President of the Warren Urban League Board, and is a Member of the Trumble County Welfare Board.
Throughout her life, she was faced by the dynamics of this changing country. She sought to make a difference. She sought to challenge segregation. She challenged inequity and the deficiencies of the political system, and she challenged our society.
As my grandmother lead my family into the industrial age, I now find myself in the position to help lead the EOP into this dynamic information age. The EOP must adapt to this radically changing world and economy.
The explosion in computer technology, especially the rise of the Internet and e-mail are transforming government and the way it responds to the American people. As the seat of Executive authority, the White House is in a position to use the new information technology to involve the American people in their government in real time in a way that was never possible before.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time, the new information technology poses new challenges from the year 2000 problem, to the sheer inundation of the EOP system. The number of hits to our WEB site is increasing exponentially. Before June 1996, we received an average of 15 hits per day. We are now up to an average of 8,787 hits per day. In 1994, the number of records captured by our automated records management system, we call ARMS, was 1.7 million. In 1997, it was 4.1 million. We estimate that by the year 2000, we can expect to be managing 30 million records.
While we have witnessed these exponential increases, our information technology infrastructure has not been able to keep up with the ever decreasing demands of change, in order to provide the EOP with the tools necessary to most effectively represent the American public.
I now present you with the EOP's budget for fiscal year 1999, since the most significant increase is related to the EOP's 12.2 million Capital Investment Plan, which is critical toward taking the EOP into the next century.
I will address this first. In order to understand where we are going, however, it is necessary to understand where we were, where we have been, and where we are now. In the year just 365 days since I last testified before you, the Office of Administration has engaged in a methodical plan to revitalize its information technology, a plan begun by my predecessor, Frank Reader, when he formed the EOP's Information Technology Advisory Board in 1995.
Mr. KOLBE. Let me just interrupt you for a moment. You have a 12-page statement. So far, you have gone through all of it. We all have that in front of us. Could you summarize the few points?
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. POSEY. I certainly do not plan to read all 12 of the pages, sir.
Mr. KOLBE. Okay.
Ms. POSEY. Let me say that, again, with the rapid advancement of information technology in the past 20 years, spanning several administrations, EOP agencies were independently constructing custom, redundant, inconsistent, incompatible, and inaccessible systems.
I am pleased to report that we have provided to you, first in July of 1997, our information Technology Architecture Plan, a document that built on the five-year plan originally submitted in 1996 by my predecessor.
Logicon, which are outside consultants, indicated that we believe the EOP is caught in a double bind. It has too many legacy systems that cannot be shut down without a functional replacement. It does not have the budget to maintain the status quo in the face of escalating maintenance support costs while attempting to accomplish strategic improvements.
I will be glad to respond to any of your questions. I believe that the information technology submission that we have for you is the most important part of our budget submission today. I will be glad to answer any other questions that you may have and hope that my entire statement be placed in the record.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. Trust me, the entire statement will be in the record.
Ms. POSEY. Thank you.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you.
Ms. POSEY. And I did not read all 12 pages.
[The statement of Ms. Posey follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. KOLBE. You certainly did not.
Ms. POSEY. Okay.
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
Mr. KOLBE. And I appreciate you summarizing the important parts of that. I would quite agree that the information technology is at the heart of the issues with you. It may not be at the heart of the political issues we are going to discuss today, but I can tell you that the vast majority of my questions have to do with that.
However, because we are going to have a lot of interest in the issues of the White House Counsel, I am going to ask my first and only set of questions on that, just to try to establish the ground work for some other questions which may come up here.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope just so that everybody is dealing from the same data base here. Let me say also, since we have a very full number of people here, we will strictly adhere to the five-minute rule.
In the testimony before the Subcommittee in 1995, your predecessor indicated that no White House staff, specifically talking about the attorneys and the Counsel's Office, as it related to the Whitewater investigation, were acting as lawyers for the President and First Lady, ''where there is no official nexus.'' The question is, is there an official nexus between the current investigation by the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Starr, Judge Starr, in the matters relating to Monica Lewinsky and others as it relates to the President's constitutional ceremonial or statutory responsibilities? If so, can you define that nexus for us?
Ms. POSEY. Sir, I would love to be able to provide to you a legal answer to that question. I am not an attorney.
Mr. KOLBE. Neither am I.
Ms. POSEY. I will attempt to answer that question from my perspective as a manager. The Counsel's Office devotes their time to addressing the legislative, Constitutional, and policy agenda of the President.
In addition to that, they perform daily counseling responsibilities for the White House. In addition, the Counsel's Office is obligated to ensure compliance with numerous requests for documents and information from various investigative entities, including Congressional committees.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1997 alone, there were 600 document requests, through those document requests from the Burton and also the Senate committee. Almost a quarter of a million pieces of paper were submitted. Now, in addition, there are Independent Counsel Offices, the Justice Department, private litigators, et cetera. Since 1995, the Counsel has had a team of up to six attorneys and three para-legals devoted to responding to requests from investigative entities.
The other attorneys and the staff in the office handle the routine matters of the Counsel's Office. Clearly, there is federal business done when there are Congressional requests for information. That information is then provided to Congressional and other investigative bodies. This is official business. This is the business that is taken care of by the White House Counsel's staff.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Ms. Posey for your answer. It was totally non-responsive to my question which, of course, had to do with something that is not a question of the Congressional committees at this point; the nexus between the matter of the President's deposition to the jury in a case in Arkansas and the Monica Lewinsky case.
What I was asking was the nexus between that and the official statutory responsibilities that would involve the White House Counsel's Office. Let me ask you, since funds are only to be used for official expenses in the White House Office, are there procedures to enforce this requirement? Specifically, is there an outline of those procedures?
Ms. POSEY. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that all activities that are taking place in the White House Counsel's Office, and all offices of the White House, are activities that are to be funded and appropriate by appropriated funds.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KOLBE. So, they are official activities.
Ms. POSEY. They are official activities. With regard to specific procedures, I do not have them at my finger tips. I would be glad to take that question for the record.
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, I would like you to.
Ms. POSEY. If you would like me to.
Mr. KOLBE. I am running out of time. Can you tell me, how are work loads tracked in the Office of the Counsel? Most law firms have billable hours. Do you know if they keep track of their billing time or their time that they spend in some similar kind of fashion?
Ms. POSEY. I do know generally, Mr. Chairman, that there are assignments that are given by Charles Ruff and also the Deputy Counsel. I do not believe that there is a tracking system as a law firm that is billable. Certainly, there are assignments given by the managers of that area.
Mr. KOLBE. In fiscal year 1994, the operating budget was $1.9 million for the Office of General Counsel. What is it in fiscal year 1998 and what is the request for fiscal year 1999?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. POSEY. Specifically for the White House Counsel's staff, sir, I do not have the specifics on that right here with me. With regard to the White House Office, the White House Office is provided with 400 FTEs, authorized FTEs, as you well know.
Mr. KOLBE. We got the $1.9 million from, I guess, your predecessor a couple of years ago. When you are compiling this budget, you do not have it down by various component offices in the White House?
Ms. POSEY. I do not have the specifics now, sir. I can provide that to you.
Mr. KOLBE. Yes, I think that would be a rather important part of a budget request. I think we would like to have you provide that.
Mr. KOLBE. My time is up. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Livingston, I will go to Mr. Hoyer and recognize you immediately after. Is that satisfactory?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to Mr. Livingston.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I just have really one question. I have a few for the record that I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. The questions will be submitted.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. The one question I have, Ms. Posey, if you could please, would you differentiate for me the use of legal services in the White House Counsel's Office with taxpayer funds, first, for official duties of the President and the First Lady when those are for personal benefit of the President and the First Lady?
Would you tell me how your office goes about defining the differences between those services?
Ms. POSEY. Mr. Livingston, I would answer by saying to you that all business that is conducted in the White House Counsel's Office is in furtherance of official business, official duties.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. All $2.5 million worth and all 34 Counsel were all exclusively for the President's and the First Lady's official business. Is that right?
Ms. POSEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Thirty-four attorneys, para-legals, and researcher, all for the official duties.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. POSEY. Yes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. You then would categorize the barring of law enforcement personnel from Vince Foster's records, the keeping of damaging documents from Congressional Committees in the White Water and the Travel Office scandal from the committees, the review of Rose Law Firm billing records which disappeared for two years despite their subpoena, the exercise of attorney/client privilege which was rejected by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and such things as the investigation of enemies of the Administration at the behest of that private group known as IGI, you would determine that these were all incidents of official business. Is that correct?
Ms. POSEY. I would say that all business performed, all business conducted by the White House Counsel's Office is for official business.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Ms. Posey, with respect to the Counsel's Office, I do not know whether you have made a study, but do you know whether there is any historical precedence for the level of inquiries made from the Congress of the United States, including Whitewater counsel which may or may not be related to official business, quite obviously, and may or may not seek official documents quite obviously? Do you know whether there is any historical precedence for the level of inquiries made to this White House?
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. POSEY. I believe that this is unprecedented.
Mr. HOYER. Let me ask you something. The Office of Administration, which you head, does not have within it the Counsel's Office; does it?
Ms. POSEY. No, it does not.
Mr. HOYER. The Counsel's Office is within the White House Office.
Ms. POSEY. Yes, it is.
Mr. HOYER. So that from a managerial standpoint, you do not manage the Office of Counsel.
Ms. POSEY. No, I do not.
Mr. HOYER. In fact, the determinations that are made by the Office Counsel as it relates to what appropriately the Office should deal with are in fact made by the Counsel in that office. Am I correct?
Ms. POSEY. Yes. You are correct, sir.
Mr. HOYER. Am I also correct, from what I understand your testimony to be that you are saying that representations made to you is that in fact there are no actions being taken by the Counsel's Office or services rendered that are not in fact related to the official duties and position of the President of the United States?
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. POSEY. That is correct, sir.
Mr. HOYER. Now, I would observe, and this is not a question, Ms. Posey, that some of the questions that you were asked, of course, adopt premises that have been alleged by newspapers, which we found to be incorrect in the past.
I just got through a case, Loretta Sanchez, in which the basis for the proceedings were based upon newspaper reports. Specifically, the individuals on the Majority side said the newspapers said there must be something there. Thirteen and 14 months' of investigation incurred thereafter, and the District Attorney for Orange County had a Grand Jury investigate everything.
In fact, the Grand Jury found that there was no reasonable probability that a crime had been committed or that X, Y, or Z had committed a crime. It is very difficult to determine that at the outset, obviously. So, the newspaper reports are not fact. They are reports.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BUDGET
Now, having said that, let me move on to what I believe to be the substance of this hearing. That is if we do not fund the $12.2 million that you have asked for with respect to the technology computerization, what will be the result?
Ms. POSEY. The result will be that the Executive Office of the President's computing capabilities will be shut down.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HOYER. The consequences of that would be?
Ms. POSEY. I believe the consequences are untenable. I believe that the staff would have to resort to typewriters. I believe that we would not be able to respond to the American people in the way that they would expect of the Executive Office of the President.
Mr. HOYER. Would information be lost as well that you would be unable to retrieve?
Ms. POSEY. We would have paper records, probably, piling as high as this building and every other building in Washington, DC and beyond.
Mr. HOYER. So that from your perspective, the $12.2 million in fact carries out what the Committee's objectives were as it relates to the ability of the White House to have an up-to-date working information management system?
Ms. POSEY. Yes. The Committee required us, as the Chairman mentioned before, to take a hard look at what we were doing and how we were doing it. To comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act. To comply with Government Performance and Results Act. To do the right things to put together a modernization plan that makes sense, that was prudent, that was reasonable, that took care of our Y2K problem. We have done that.
I believe very strongly in our plan. I believe it does not provide for whiz-bang technology. It provides for a cornerstone, a frame work. That is what our information technology architecture provides. That is the direction that we are leading to.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY
Mr. HOYER. Because my time is limited, let me go to the last subject I would like to deal with in this round. The White House Office accounts includes funding now to reimburse the White House Communications Agency for non-telecommuting support services which was previously paid by the Defense Department.
How is this working? Has it become more difficult to track costs? What management controls have been instituted to track costs? What is the new bill payment procedure between the White House and the WHCA?
Ms. POSEY. We have developed a memorandum of understanding, IAGs, Inter Agency Agreements for personnel and audio visual services. Let me say that the reimbursement does not generate a need for us to invent a whole new process of mechanisms for approving activities.
Certainly given the limited latitude that we have in our budget, as opposed to the Department of Defense, it behooved us to come up with some very strong internal controls to manage those costs.
The White House Communications Agency bills monthly to the White House Office as opposed to quarterly. There are trending and tracking reports. There is the development of standard operating procedures.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a former auditor, an internal auditor, those are probably the most sound controls that you can put in place to track expenses. It behooves us to do that. We do not have the flexibility. Actually, it is not more difficult. It is more consuming, I would say, but we do it because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Ms. Meek.
FENCED FUNDS
Ms. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms. Posey.
I have been reading your testimony. I notice that you are experiencing some system failures and some other things you have described here which certainly will inhibit your capacity to serve the President to the best of your ability.
Certainly that is noted. However, my question is you endured a level of hardship imposed through the fencing of your funds from which you are still recovering. Would you elaborate on that statement and tell me what kind of problems you are having? Tell me how the funds were fenced or what that process is like?
Ms. POSEY. Let me just say that the fencing of the funds was significant for us. What we essentially had to do is cannibalize equipment that we used for development projects in preparation for our Y2K assessment to fix and repair operational equipment that was in place.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It had been deployed for operations, this equipment that we cannibalized, over the years. As a result, as I have said before, we had to suspend projects underway, which addressed our short term strategies such as advancing our Lotus Notes E-mail System, such as our migration project from moving from a main frame environment to a client server environment.
This put us behind. It certainly had an impact to our customers. It certainly had an impact on the morale of my staff. At the same time, it did provide a wake-up notice to all of the heads of the agencies in the EOP that we needed a strong management structure to manage information technology in the EOP.
That is why we created the ITMT, the Information Technology Management Team. That team addresses and provides advice and counsel to me in terms of corporate decisions that are made with regard to information technology.
So, I think that the fencing, of course, had an effect on us in both ways; a lot of hardship. We are still living with it. We have done a lot in the last 365 days. I think that we will get through and over that particular period when our funds were fenced.
LEGACY COMPUTER SYSTEMS
Ms. MEEK. Thank you. You mentioned something about you have too many legacy systems that cannot be shut down. What solutions have you worked out in terms of this year's budget application that you submitted to this committee?
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You have delineated quite a few problems that you have had, one, because of fencing, others because of break downs, et cetera. In your budget presentation, what have you asked for, Ms. Posey, that will help to alleviate these problems?
Ms. POSEY. Thank you for the question. Today, I brought along with me Laura Crabtree who is our senior technical advisor to our ITMT. In terms of a person who knows how to break down technical information into a lay person's terms for all of us here and for me, I would like to defer that question to her and she will be glad to answer how those things have been affected. Laura.
Ms. MEEK. Thank you.
Ms. CRABTREE. I appreciate the question, thank you.
We have had a tremendous challenge, as you are aware, at the EOP to get our information systems and our technology architecture into a standard spaced environment, and to position ourselves in such a way that we can respond to the Government Performance Results Act and the criteria cited in ITMRA (Information Technology Management Reform Act).
While doing this and moving toward our Y2K evolution, we have had the additional challenge of working in such an environment where we have legacy systems, and applications and technology, that has exceeded its life cycle.
In the budget that has been submitted before you, there are some key project areas that allow us to set the foundation in place in order to move forward into the next out years of taking advantage of our technology.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are moving towards basically a new focus. We have shifted the paradigm into user bas