Budget Hearing – Architect of the Capitol

The subcommittee will come to order. The subject of today's hearing is fiscal year 2027 budget request for the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office. I'd like to thank Ranking Member Espaillat, Ranking Member DeLauro, our committee members, Acting Comptroller General Brown, Director Swagel for being here today. I'd also like to thank you and your staff for the work they do to help keep Congress and the entire government function in an effective and efficient manner. Government Accountability Office fiscal year 2027 budget request totals $860 million, a $48 million increase over fiscal year 2026 enacted level. And the Congressional Budget Office fiscal year 2027 request is $76.3 million, an increase of $1.5 million over fiscal year 2026 enacted level. Thank you again for joining us today. I look forward to hearing your testimonies and learning more about your budget priorities for fiscal year 2027. I now recognize Ranking Member Espaillat for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Swagel and Ms. Brown, thank you both for being here today. I want to commend you and your staff for the essential work that you do on a daily basis to support Congress and uphold our constitutional power of the purse. We are operating in a constrained fiscal environment and difficult political climate where facts and independent analysis are too often questioned. That makes the work of your agencies a lot more important, more so than ever before. Dr. Swagel, I look forward to hearing about the Congressional Budget Office fiscal year 2027 priorities including IT modernization and how you're addressing cyber threats and attacks, as well as ensuring Congress continues to receive objective and nonpartisan analysis. Ms. Brown, congratulations on your role as Acting Comptroller General. Thank you for your continued leadership at the Government Accountability Office. I am concerned about the workforce reductions outlined in your fiscal year 2027 request, even with a proposed funding increase. I look forward to having a robust discussion with both of you. I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize... let's make sure I'm not skipping anyone. I now recognize Acting Comptroller General Brown for your full testimony. Your full testimony has been submitted for the record and you are now recognized to provide a summary of your written testimony.

Chairman Valadao, Ranking Member Espaillat, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to present GAO's 2027 budget request. I appreciate the support the committee has provided GAO in the past. GAO continues to be a solid investment for the Congress and taxpayers. Last year, Congress and the executive branch implemented actions that resulted in financial benefits of over $62 billion resulting from our work. And there remain hundreds of billions of dollars in potential financial benefits that have yet to be realized through congressional and executive action. We are requesting an increase of $48.2 million, about 5.9 percent, to help offset projected increased costs. This would bring our appropriated request to just over $860 million. If enacted, this would be our first increase since fiscal year 2024, when we received a 2.4 percent increase. We are also seeking to use just over $50 million in offsetting appropriations for a total budget authority of $910 million. With this budget, our 2027 staff level target is 3,100, a decrease of over 450 from our 2024 level. While requiring a smaller GAO, this level would allow us to continue to shrink with the least amount of disruption to our mission and workforce. GAO's mission is to support the Congress in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. As a nonpartisan fact-based legislative support agency for the Congress, demand for our work continues to be robust and spans the federal government's over $7 trillion budget. Wherever the federal dollars go, so goes GAO. Our work is driven by hundreds of requests with generally just over half coming from mandates in law and committee reports, which are our highest priority. In addition to mandates and requests, we also respond to hundreds of additional requests for quick turnaround technical assistance. In addition to the $62 billion in financial benefits I mentioned earlier, our work resulted in almost 1,300 non-financial benefits, over 670 products issued, and 1,800 new recommendations. Moreover, we handled over 1,680 bid protests and issued over 450 legal decisions. The 2027 requested level will enable us to continue to support the priority oversight areas that have been highlighted by Congress, including identifying fraud, waste, and abuse across the federal government and offering ways to prevent and mitigate it. IT and cybersecurity, science and technology and its societal impacts, national security, and healthcare. The budget request will also enable us to continue to make modest investments in cybersecurity and advanced analytics to increase our sophistication and speed that we are able to address congressional needs. In closing, I appreciate your consideration of our 2027 budget request. We will be issuing our State of the Nation's Fiscal Health report soon and understand the difficult tradeoffs that have to be made. GAO is committed to continuing to do its part in being a responsible steward and commits to redoubling our efforts to continue to be a solid investment and a key player in continuing to help ensure the federal government is efficient and effective for the American people. With your support, GAO will continue to provide nonpartisan fact-based information and analysis for the Congress. This concludes my opening statement and I am prepared to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brown. I now recognize Director Swagel for a summary of your written testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Valadao, Ranking Member Espaillat, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Congressional Budget Office's budget request. Let me start by thanking you for your continued support. CBO requests an appropriation of $76.3 million for fiscal year 2027, that is an increase of $1.5 million or 2 percent from the amount provided in 2026. The request would address increased costs for pay and benefits, allow CBO to further strengthen its IT and cybersecurity infrastructure, and enable the agency to add staff in areas of especially intense legislative interest. Our mission is to provide nonpartisan analysis to the Congress that is timely, rigorous, and transparent. When legislation is heading to a vote, we provide cost estimates and real-time analysis of amendments, often hundreds or even thousands of them for bills such as the NDAA. We provide analysis and technical assistance for large complex legislation, such as the 2025 Reconciliation Act, as we did for reconciliation in 2022 and 2021. For both sides in both chambers, we provide the analysis that is wanted and needed at the time it matters in the legislative process. We produce budget and economic projections that incorporate the effects of legislation, economic developments, and administrative actions. And we provide analysis of a broad range of policy issues in front of the Congress, bringing to bear data and analysis from a wide variety of sources. Demand for CBO's work remains strong among congressional leadership, committees, and individual members. The additional resources would enhance our responsiveness and further strengthen our transparency efforts. In the rest of 2026, CBO will shrink from 274 in February to 268 positions. And this is to absorb ongoing costs with strengthening our cybersecurity infrastructure. I'm grateful for the subcommittee's support in providing $2.75 million in additional cybersecurity resources in the current year. The continued elevated costs for that purpose mean that the funding available for other activities remains essentially flat. For 2027, 80 percent of our requested increase, so that's $1.2 out of the $1.5 million, would cover increases in current employee salaries and benefits and would enable CBO to expand staff in key areas of congressional interest. The request would allow us to start the process of increasing our staffing from the 268 we'll end up with, ultimately to 285 is my target. Six of the additional positions would allow us to refill the vacancies that we will not replace this year. The 11 additional staff would strengthen analysis of defense and homeland security and then of income security programs such as SNAP. It would also allow us to enhance our transparency and responsiveness, expand our dynamic analysis, bolster our cybersecurity and IT further, and support our publishing and digital communications. The remaining 20 percent of the increase, that's about $300,000, would address continuing cyber and IT costs. While the total cybersecurity spending would remain elevated, it would decline from this year's level because certain one-time expenditures that we had in the current year will not recur. And that's how we get to the net of an overall increase of 2 percent. The requested budget would support our goal to provide budget and economic information when it is most useful to the Congress. We support the appropriations committees in particular by providing real-time provision-by-provision estimates of the 12 annual appropriations bills and of any supplemental appropriations bills or continuing resolutions. We will respond to thousands of requests for technical assistance and preliminary estimates, often on quick turnarounds as committees craft legislation. Let me finish by just mentioning one transparency effort that we've been pushing especially hard on, and that's to post the code from some of our models. And we've recently posted an additional number of models that brings us up to a total of 24 models on our GitHub website. And that includes especially the code for our tariff analysis model. So in summary, to achieve our goal of being as responsive as possible, CBO requests an increase of $1.5 million. Thank you for your support. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Swagel. We'll now begin the question portion of the hearing. I'll call on members based on seniority of those present when the hearing was called to order, alternating between majority and minority, followed by members in order of their arrival. Each will have five minutes. I now recognize myself. In fiscal year 2026 legislative branch appropriations report, the committee directed legislative branch agencies to work together to partner on common policy standards utilizing artificial intelligence and ways in which AI may be developed and shared within the legislative branch AI working group. Questions for both of you. Please share with the committee to what extent your agency is utilizing AI to improve the processes and efficiencies of your work. Start with Ms. Brown.

Yes. So GAO is exploring ways to use AI. We have recently updated our inventory of use cases, and we've identified several use cases that are currently operational, a number that are in development, and more that are more in the early stages. So in terms of a couple of examples that we're actually leveraging AI, one is we have a tool that's called FACET, and that is the Federal Audit Clearinghouse Exploration Tool. So basically, that takes all of the single audit reports that states and localities are required to produce across the country. Those are shared in the executive branch in a clearinghouse. So they're PDF files that were really not usable before without pulling each individual file, having someone go through the file. With this exploration tool, our analysts are now able to use those single audits to identify trends. We've identified persistent audit, persistent challenges in certain areas, severe deficiencies, and we use that to inform our audit work. So it's been able to help us accelerate identifying issues and targeting our efforts.

Mr. Swagel.

Thank you. So we've been using AI intensively for some purposes for a while now, starting with coding that the analysts in developing models really benefit from the AI tools. There's increasing use cases, and even in the last several months, these have gotten better. So we're using it for research purposes to summarize research literature. Some of our groups are now experimenting with using AI tools to summarize legislative language. Our Medicare group especially has been pushing forward on this. It's not yet at the point where AI can develop a cost estimate, and obviously we'd have a person at the end of this process no matter what, but I want us to push further. And ultimately, I'm hoping that we can get basically deeper down through our backlog of requests for information by having AI tools help our analysts. I just mention one last thing, which is on the inbound side, we also get analysis that's clearly generated by AI, which is not always super helpful in some sense. It takes us time to kind of figure it out.

Thank you. As we previously discussed, we know the impact that a CBO score can have on a bill's ability to become law. We understand that your agency is often hampered from being able to get complete data from federal agencies on relevant topics that could give you the ability to develop more accurate scores. In your testimony, you cited this example regarding your agency's lack of access to student loan data. How can this committee assist you with improving the responsiveness of all federal agencies in sharing this important data?

Thank you. I'll mention two things. One is the student loan data in particular needs a legislative fix, and we've been working with the Appropriations Committee, with the Budget Committee, with Finance over in the Senate and Ways and Means, and we're hopeful to have that legislative change. That would allow us to keep doing the analysis of student loan data that Congress depends on. For most of our requests, we have good cooperation from executive branch agencies, including the ones that don't always like our analysis. I would come to you with any problems if we're facing problems from executive branch agencies.

Thank you. In your testimony, you shared that the agency will require further reductions in its workforce in fiscal year 2027. I understand that you have been offering VERA, VSIP, early retirement, and voluntary separation incentives to your employees over the past several months. How many employees have accepted these opportunities to date, Ms. Brown?

To date, with our first round of VERA VSIP, we had 122 employees accept the offer. We currently have a VERA VSIP open, and I think as of my last update, we have just over 45 or so people who have put in an application. They're able to withdraw the application, but that's where we stand at this particular moment.

How many employees have requested to accept one of these separation opportunities, but the agency has denied their request?

None.

None. All right. Thank you. My time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Espaillat for his five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brown, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm concerned about the workforce reduction outlined in your fiscal year 2027 request. After years of essentially flat funding, GAO is being forced to shrink its workforce even as demands on the agency continue to grow. Can you be specific about what these reductions will mean for the agency? What work will GAO have to scale back or cut or stop altogether?

So what it means, a smaller GAO means that there's less work we can do. So we are looking across the organization to make sure that we have done any rebalancing that we need to do once we have gone through our second round of VERA VSIP to make sure we're able to continue to staff Congress's highest priorities. So this has resulted in us really focusing on core mission activities. So our priorities are the Congress's priorities. So we are going to focus our resources on science and technology, national security, healthcare issues, fraud, waste, and abuse, government efficiency efforts, as well as IT and cyber. So it will mean that it may take us longer to start certain things, but it's also going to require us to increase...

What kind of things would it take longer?

So we won't take it off the list, but it may mean that it takes us longer to start engagements. So it could impact anything across the Congress. We'll work with committees to make sure we're working on their highest priority issues. So if a committee has multiple requests into GAO, we will work with them to prioritize their highest priorities. We treat mandates as our highest priority because they are required of us in statute and committee language. So those are the ones that we will make the highest priority.

Thank you. Mr. Swagel, CBO's recent analysis showed the current tariff and trade policies are rising prices on both consumer and capital goods, increasing inflation, and lowering household purchasing power. What does this mean for the American family?

Yes, we've done a lot of analysis on the tariffs over the last year, which were put in place by administrative action. And as you said, our analysis indicates that those lead to higher prices and slower job creation and slower growth, and that has an effect on American families, increasing the costs they face and reducing their purchasing power.

And how will higher capital costs affect construction, housing? Housing continues to be a big issue across the country. And how would it impact housing and business investment? And how does the uncertainty created by these policies impact the broader economy?

So the trade modeling that we've done, which again is public and has been used by other groups, takes into account the details of the structure of the American economy and the details of the tariffs, which change frequently, but we go into the details. And so we have that effect that the tariffs are hitting the inputs that businesses use in their work, including housing. So they raise the costs for businesses, and then that flows through eventually to consumers. And then there's the uncertainty effect that you mentioned as well.

And so finally, what would the outlook look like if trade policies were adjusted to reduce these burdens on ordinary Americans? So this is obviously, according to your analysis, a big problem. What would an adjustment in the trade policies look like in real terms?

And of course, CBO doesn't recommend policies, but the analysis would indicate that the change you mentioned in some sense would attenuate or reverse some of the negative impacts, reduce inflationary pressures, reduce the drag on the economy and on job creation and families.

And obviously, these analyses did not include the rising oil prices. Correct?

That's correct. We're watching that and we'll provide more information. We don't yet know in some sense the duration or cost of the conflict with Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Espaillat. I now recognize Mr. Strong for his five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Valadao, Ranking Member, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Ms. Brown, you noted that GAO's budget has been relatively flat while personnel costs continue to rise. What structural changes has GAO made internally to absorb those increases before requesting additional funds from Congress?

The biggest structural change has been to decrease the size of the workforce. GAO's budget is over 80 percent people, so that's the vast majority of our costs. So that leaves us a very little percentage of the remainder of the budget to adjust. We've also taken a look at some of our engagement support costs in terms of travel costs as well as data purchases. We've also tried to limit our investment in IT spending. So we have kind of focused across the entire agency, but the biggest place we've done to try to restructure our organization is through shrinking the size of our workforce.

Thank you. A few weeks ago, you and I talked about how the federal government could be losing hundreds of billions of dollars annually to fraud. Ms. Brown, based on GAO's assessment, could you tell everyone here which programs currently pose the greatest risk and where Congress should focus oversight first?

I think when it comes to fraud, it's focusing on the largest programs, the largest and complex programs. So those are the programs that tend to be the most rich because it makes them a high target. So Medicare, Medicaid are programs, also some of the disaster assistance programs. That becomes a target-rich environment because it's so complicated with the dozens of agencies that are involved in the process. But this is something that has to be focused on writ large across the government. And GAO has recently received a request from the chairman of House Oversight to look at this issue kind of across federal programs. So I think we'll have a much clearer picture about that once we do the across-agency review.

Thank you. You've made roughly 200 recommendations related to fraud risk management across your agency. What percentage of those recommendations remain unimplemented and why?

I think it's just under 40 percent are unimplemented. And I think there are a couple of factors at play. One, some of the issues to address them are complicated. The second issue is that I think agencies are only now beginning to focus on fraud as an issue. Often there's a tension between fulfilling the mission of a program and making sure there are good controls in place to make sure fraud, waste, and abuse is not happening. And we have worked hard to educate agencies as well as the accountability community to make sure they're thinking about it on the front end and not chasing after the dollars after they're out the door. I think it's just under 40 percent are unimplemented. And I think there are a couple of factors at play. One, some of the issues to address them are complicated. The second issue is that I think agencies are only now beginning to focus on fraud as an issue. Often there's a tension between fulfilling the mission of a program and making sure there are good controls in place to make sure fraud, waste, and abuse is not happening. And we have worked hard to educate agencies as well as the accountability community to make sure they're thinking about it on the front end and not chasing after the dollars after they're out the door.

Thank you. Dr. Swagel, can you walk us through what steps your agency is taking internally to control cost and find efficiencies before requesting additional resources for fiscal year 2027?

Yes, sir. We also are looking to focus on the areas of Congress's most interest and to move people around within the agency to provide the additional resources from our existing pool. So for example, I've asked for part of our increase to hire people in means-tested programs. Within the agency, we're down a few people on that, and so we have moved people within the agency, taking people from our research side to our budget analysis side to contribute on that. So before I ask for more, I'm looking within, can I rearrange things to help out?

Thank you. Dr. Swagel, 15 years ago, affordable healthcare was sold to previous members of Congress and the American people as a better healthcare at a more affordable rate, keep your physician, you'll save more than $2,000 a year. Fifteen years later, none of the benchmarks were met while costs have gone through the roof. Have there been analytical changes in your office to ensure that this doesn't happen again?

Yes. It's a hallmark of what we do is we look back and say, well, what did we get right and what did we get wrong? And so for the example, the Affordable Care Act, which I think is what you're talking about, there's some things that the CBO analysis missed. And so for example, the effect of the mandate within the ACA, there was a very narrow evidence base and CBO's analysis turned out to be off in terms of the subsequent what happened. And so we have gone back, changed that, and our future work would reflect that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Strong. I now recognize Ranking Member DeLauro for her five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Williams Brown, thank you, and Dr. Swagel, for being here this morning. Sorry I was late in coming. But let me just start with you, Ms. Williams Brown. It doesn't really go amiss that the GAO helps Congress so much. You evaluate national security, you analyze healthcare spending, so that the work created under your leadership at GAO is really crucial. We're grateful for the constant information and the data that you provide to improve the decisions that we make. And you also have the responsibility for enforcing Congress's power of the purse. So we're grateful to you for that. Let me just ask about your workforce. And despite all of the great work and information you and your agency provide the Congress, funding for the GAO was almost halved last year. And it's currently flat funding since 2024. As a result, almost 200 employees had to be let go from your agency. Can you tell us how this has impacted the agency, how it's impacted the operations, and letting us know, do you feel as though you're properly staffed for the amount of work that you conduct and produce for the Congress?

So the employees that separated have, it's happened across the organization. So it's been analysts that directly do the work. It's also been our operations and support across the agency. One area particularly hard hit has been our information technology group. They've lost a fair number of resources. So it has an impact on the organization. We've worked really hard to try to minimize that impact. If there's a critical area that we absolutely need to backfill because we're one person deep, we do that. And in terms of the impact on the direct support of the Congress, it requires us to shift, make tradeoffs, and reposition ourselves to make sure we are addressing the Congress's highest priorities.

And look, I know you're doing, you're trying to and you're working at doing more with less. There's no question in my mind in what you do. But you mentioned IT as one of the areas which is impacted. But in terms of responsiveness to the Congress, you talked about issues, where does that show up? Where does it show up? Thank you. Thank you.

It shows up really in some ways in our responsiveness in terms of being able to get to requests. Number one priority for us, mandates, as I said before. Second priority are requests from chairs and ranking members. So more than half of our work is mandated. So that then it creates a smaller workforce for us to be able to respond to the requests from the chairs and ranking member, and it can result in longer queue times.

Okay. And so your request, you were cut by about 40 percent the last go round is my understanding, or the budget was almost half, and you're asking for $48 million right now.

Yes. So it was almost, it wasn't. We were flat.

Well, no, it was a cut, but then we worked it so that you got, you know, that you were flat funded, you know.

And we are eternally grateful.

So that in this environment, many instances flat funding is a win. But that's not the point. The point is to be able to see that you have the opportunity to be able to increase the efforts and the demands that the Congress puts on you with regard to requests. So we'll keep that very, very much in mind as we look at what you're requesting. And the IT, people have talked about AI, etc., so that you know, obviously we should be state of the art. Let me just ask quickly, Dr. Swagel, and thank you at CBO as well. Deeply concerned at the news of the cyberattack on the Congressional Budget Office. It's a reminder that we need to continue to be vigilant, continue to prepare for cyber threats. It can happen at any time. Today, with the funds you currently have, do you think you are fully prepared for another event like this? And as technology continues to evolve, do you feel as though the technology you currently use is adequate in this day and age?

Thank you, and thank you again to the committee for the resources to respond to the challenge we had this year. We're in a good place now with the changes we've made in response to the incident, but we have a plan now to do better. And it's both on the hardware side and on the software side within our network. And that's the work of the next year and then beyond. So we're working on it, but it's still a work in progress.

But what does that mean in terms of your request, your funding request to get to that plan, to put you in the position that we don't see something like this happen again? Again, I say the same thing I said to Ms. Williams Brown, that you're doing more with less.

That's right.

And you're trying to do more with less. I have a particular view, others will disagree, I don't believe you can do more with less. So I stipulate. But I was interested to know what, I think you asked for $1.5 million?

That's right.

Is that enough?

We need to finish that one quickly because we're way over.

Yeah, absolutely. We had certain one-time expenditures this year that won't recur, and that's why we're asking for still an elevated amount for cyber activities, but less than in the past. And I think it will be enough for us.

Thank you. Yield back.

All right. Well, thank you. I now recognize Representative Maloy for her five minutes. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brown, I had a couple of questions for you that you've already answered, and so I'm going to start with a kind of philosophical question. You said in your testimony that your job is ensuring that the federal government is efficient and effective for the taxpayer, which is a mission I very much support. And I did a little research, and when Congress created the GAO in 1921, the reason is that Congress was really alarmed that the executive branch was booming and hiring a lot of people, and at that point there were 10 executive branch employees for every one employed by Congress. Now it's 100 to one, and the executive branch's budget is about 1,000 times what ours is. So given the growth, size, and complexity of the federal government, how can GAO keep pace with Congress's oversight needs? Because it seems like we're just having an arms race where the executive branch gets bigger, so then GAO gets bigger, and we're just hiring more and more people and we have more and more government outlays, and the point in the first place of GAO was to stop the government outlays going to the executive branch.

So yes, it's a challenge. It's hard for GAO as a support branch agency to support the Congress in providing oversight for it. So it's close coordination and conversations with the Congress about their absolute highest priorities and also around the issue of human capital. So I'll mention that in our high-risk area, one of the commonalities across the high-risk areas has to do with strategic human capital management. And that doesn't mean that more people are needed, but it's really about the skill sets of the people that are there. So we recognize the federal government's at an inflection point, and we think we've been pushing hard to look at how programs are executed. A lot of it has to do with the complexity. So many programs have become so complicated, and Medicare is a perfect example of it's so complicated it creates so many situations where it's ripe for abuse and waste because things aren't off the table, but it doesn't mean it's functioning the way it was necessarily intended. So we are continuing to push this issue of looking at the federal government, looking at programs, and making sure that agencies are doing what they need to do to make sure they're functioning effectively. Because at the end of the day, the executive branch should have to make the case for why programs should continue, and it shouldn't work the other way. And at some point along the way, it's turned into the agencies no longer having to defend their existence, and the legislative branch is constantly trying to get information and decide if it still makes sense to have over 150 housing programs, for example.

No, I agree. I want to give you a hallelujah and an amen and just say we need to be hearing from GAO more. I've noticed around here that objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and we need to question more often why we're spending money on things and why we have the personnel in executive branch agencies that we have. And we're not just here to keep funding everything, we should be doing better oversight. So thank you for that.

Can I give you an amen and a hallelujah to that too?

Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Swagel, not long ago the House requested the CBO start using dynamic scoring for certain legislation. Can you give us an update on how that's going and has it improved the accuracy of CBO estimates?

Okay. Yes. No, thank you. And I heard that message loud and clear from both sides. In the 2025 reconciliation bill, we did dynamic analysis at several stages of the process. One's for the bill that was initially passed by the House and then in the February 2026 budget update, we did essentially dynamic analysis for the entire thing as was passed by the Congress, which differed from the House version. And to get there, we did a huge amount of work, of technical work, to be in position. So I think we heard the message and we're going to do that going forward.

Thank you. And I'm almost out of time, so I'll just quickly piggyback on what my colleague Mr. Strong was asking about. CBO scores the bills we write, and then a lot of public opinion is formed around CBO scores. And sometimes they're wrong. And then later when they get revised, public opinion's already hardened. And I think we need to do a better job of getting those revisions out there and making sure people have accurate information when they're making these decisions. And I'm out of time, so I will yield back.

Okay. Yes. No, I just agree and we're continuing to work on that and that feedback is incredibly important for us.

Thank you, Ms. Maloy. I now recognize Mr. Hoyer for his five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question first. Are we going to have a second round?

We haven't had that discussion, but I'm happy to with my ranking member and I'll let you know.

We have the next hearing at 11:00.

There's some discussion about that schedule as well. I'll let you know as soon as I know what direction we're going.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I've been on this committee a long time, had a 20-year hiatus. Invariably, we had second rounds. The practice is now, 11:00 happens and we don't need any more information.

I appreciate the member's comments, but usually when we make those decisions, we make them here with my ranking member. I don't make them unilaterally. I do have those conversations and I'm having those conversations.

We walked out with the ranking member last time, there was no discussion then. I don't mean to be overly critical.

There was actually a discussion. That discussion happened, the decision was made there was not going to be a second round. Things changed when people started turning on their mics. I gave the full committee's ranking member an opportunity to speak. She spoke and then I saw the discussion on this side had already been agreed to with both sides that there would not be a second round. I'm happy to have a second round if that's something the ranking member would like to do so, but we had already had a discussion about rolling right into the second committee. But since we're having this debate now, I mean, I'd prefer my ranking member and I confer and make a decision how to move forward and then we'll let everyone know what we're doing. But I'd prefer not doing that in this form, but privately so that we can settle this the way we should.

All right. Ms. Brown, who makes your budget request?

We do.

Is it your analysis that the request you made was what you need?

So there are a number of factors that go into the budget.

Relatively simple answer. I don't have much time. Do you believe that $910.3 million is sufficient to do the job that we expect you to do or that you expect to be done?

So yes and no. So it's sufficient, we think we can do it and provide an acceptable level of service. Will it be lower than in the past? Yes, in terms of what we're able to do and the speed with which we can do it.

I agree with Ms. Maloy. We have seen an extraordinary explosion in the executive department and the Congress continues to underfund its ability to do the oversight that the American people want. We have these hearings and it's sort of a nice little politeness and you guys feel you've got to say, well, I want to defend what I'm told I need to do, which is I ask you who sets your level. Now, executive agencies have to go through OMB and OMB sets their levels. Do you feel constrained to ask for $910 million?

So when we set the level, we don't ignore the environment that we're in. So yes, there are external pressures on the budget that we request.

I personally don't like the environment we're in and therefore I want you to ignore the and I want to ask your opinion, is $910 million, which is by the way 1/60th of the money that you saved, the $62 billion. So my presumption is every increment that we cut, which is Ms. Maloy's, I think, contention, that as the executive department expands, our ability to oversee it diminishes very substantially. And therefore we don't get at waste, fraud, and abuse. Everybody is for getting at waste, fraud, and abuse. My view is most people talk about waste, fraud, and abuse like it's a huge number and they're going to balance the budget on that. We don't deal with entitlements. That's where the money is. We don't have any discussion about that because none of us want to deal with that. But what I'm trying to get at with the two of you, I think the Congress badly underfunds itself. The possibility of 18 people on our staffs being able to oversee a $5 trillion expenditure of the public's money is absurd. Thinking that you can have a shrinking budget with an extraordinary expanding expenditure and be able to keep up with waste, fraud, and abuse or the appropriateness, forget about waste, fraud, and abuse, the appropriateness of spending on object A as opposed to object B. Life's a series of tradeoffs.

It is.

And very frankly, let me tell you, I'm not for dynamic spending or scoring because I think it's a gamble. And I would rather gamble on the conservative side and say no, if you do this it's going to cost X, rather than if you do this somehow magically money's going to appear. That didn't happen in the tax cut of 1981 under Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan increased the budget deficit more than any other president in the 45 years I've been here. 180 percent increase in the national debt from $985 billion to $1.8 trillion. So I ask you the same question, Mr. Swagel, and I've got just a few seconds left, so I'm going to ask you some more questions on the second round. I don't think the budget office has sufficient resources to respond to the members. When I was majority leader for a long period of time, members kept continually complaining to me they could not get an answer in a timely fashion from the CBO and very frankly if you weren a committee chairman, the chances of getting it were much less.

Yes, that is still the case.

But I would ask each of you to be honest in terms of your own opinion because we're relying on that, I am, when I do the budget, when I'm figuring out what ought to be spent, of what is demanded of you, expected of you, and what you can and cannot do. My time has expired.

I think we're going to move into a second round. I talked to my ranking member about it and yes, we do have those discussions usually offline, not with the microphones on, and I appreciate Mr. Hoyer for bringing it up and I would appreciate a more civil approach to it in the way you approached it. But I'm going to give my time to Mr. Strong right now to ask his five minutes and then we'll come back to the list.

Thank you. Mr. Swagel, it's estimated 15 million illegal aliens have entered America under the last administration. Can you tell this committee how that has affected the budget and the debt of America?

Yes, sir. We've looked at that both at the federal level and the state and local level. The fiscal burden is in some sense on the state and local level because education costs, policing costs, incarceration, things like that are mainly at the state and local level. For the federal on the federal level, there are costs, even after the legislation last year that restricted some of the outlays, there's still costs. The immigrants who came in generally had a strong incentive to work on the books because they faced a date with an immigration judge, say seven or 10 years out in the future, again, if they show up in seven years. And so that's why in our analysis, there's a lot of revenue coming in because of that incentive that the immigrants face.

Thank you. Ms. Brown, we've been told about waste, fraud, and abuse. I think both sides of the aisle agree that it's there and government, it's obvious, it's taxpayer dollars. Can you tell me how many people have been arrested in the last 12 months related to waste, fraud, and abuse that you've evaluated through GAO?

I don't have a number. I'm happy to provide a number for the record. It's something that we do look at, but this is an example of where we have to comb through Justice Department records and in some cases state and local records so we can give you a ballpark.

Is the Department of Justice doing enough to prosecute those that have stolen from the American taxpayer?

This is an area I think more needs to be done. And the pandemic relief funds, they're a perfect example. SBA was given 10 years to pursue cases, claims against people who had defrauded the government. In other programs, that statute of limitation was not expanded, so in some cases we did not pursue those. So do I think more could be done? Yes.

What would it take to prosecute those people faster? You mentioned that more should be done. Does that mean additional funding? Does that mean additional funding to the DOJ? Where's the breakdown right now and why is the American people not seeing these prosecutions going forward?

So I think prosecuting fraud is extremely complicated. And it's difficult to build a case and it can take a long time. Sometimes it takes a long time to identify it, then you have to investigate it, then it has to be adjudicated. So the process can take a long time. In some cases, it's identified at the agency level. The IGs need to have the resources to be able to do the investigations and work with their law enforcement partners to bring cases. So in some cases it's a skill, it's you need good analysis and you need to be able to do kind of the investigations to build a case.

Thank you. And I concur with the gentleman Mr. Hoyer on entitlements. I think it's time to take it up. I think the this $38, $39 trillion debt is totally unsustainable and we need to take it up at any level. So I join you on that, whether it's entitlements, whether it's programs, whether it's fraud, theft, and abuse, go down the list. What we've got is a debt that's unsustainable and we've got to get that debt paid down and right now we're not going in the right direction. But I thank both of you for coming before us and Mr. Hoyer, I stand willing to work with you on any of those items that we can to reduce the expenditure of our budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

And GAO is ready to support.

Thank you, Mr. Strong. I now recognize my Ranking Member, Mr. Espaillat, for his five minutes.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for allowing us the ability to continue to ask these important questions. Mr. Swagel, you mentioned issues relating to immigrants and the undocumented, and you referred to what may be perceived to be a social cost of their presence here. Do they contribute anything to America?

Yes, sir. So we do the budget and economic analysis at the federal level. The budget impact on net over the 10-year window is a positive because the people who came in over the last several years were very heavily skewed toward working-age adults, and they had a strong incentive to participate in the labor force.

And do they pay any types of taxes?

Yes, sir. So, of course, at the state and local level, they'll pay sales taxes. At the federal level, there's also income tax and payroll tax that they would pay as well.

And do you have an idea what that amounts to globally, the kind of contribution in terms of taxes that they pay?

Okay, I can give you an indication. In our recent budget projections, the administrative changes in immigration policy since the previous budget update, so that's from January of last year until February of this year, we project will increase the federal deficit by about $500 billion over 10 years. And again, it's the net of some lower outlays, but then also lower revenues from the smaller labor force.

Now, you mentioned Medicaid, and each state has rules for Medicaid. Some states don't take, didn't take the additional funding that Obamacare provided for them. Some states don't provide a specific benefit for children, others do. So, you know, each state has its own rules. But are undocumented people eligible for federal funding from the federal government itself, forget the states, from the federal government itself through Medicaid?

In Medicaid, I mean, there's certain funding that is still available, there's certain emergency funding. It doesn't go directly to the individual, it goes to, say, to the hospital for the services in the ER. The 2025 legislation, the 2025 reconciliation legislation, narrowed that funding, and we have that in our budget update, the deficit reduction from the changes in Medicaid.

So in essence, if you were to do a global analysis, what immigrants are taking from our country is far less than what they are contributing.

At the federal level, that's right. As I said, we had the changes in immigration from last year to this year will increase the deficit by about $500 billion. And again, which is the net of the changes in revenues and outlays.

So the concept that they're blood-sucking vampires that are taking everything from America is basically wrong. They're contributing a lot.

I'm sorry, I'm smiling. I could never imagine those words in a CBO report. But we would say on net, on the federal level, again, it's different at the state and local level because it's different, but at the federal level, the budget impact is a net positive.

I just want to state that there's a lot of confusion out there and a lot of peddling of wrong information that often leads America to think that immigration is bad and that it is a negative thing. And your numbers show that at the federal level, it is a positive thing. It is contributing to the economy. I don't even want to get into the crime numbers, you know, which clearly show that U.S. citizens are more likely to commit a crime than immigrants. I don't know any undocumented immigrant that leaves their home and says, let me commit a crime today and let's get deported. In fact, they try to stay within the parameters of the law and are pretty much law-abiding, much more so according to many studies, including one by Cornell, than a regular American citizen. I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Maloy for her five minutes.

I may not need the whole five minutes. But Mr. Swagel, when I ran out of time, you were talking about how CBO can better address inaccuracies in initial CBO scores. Do you want to go ahead and finish that answer?

Oh, yeah, no, thank you. I was about to talk about one example in our analysis of the 2025 reconciliation legislation, which in some ways is like the mandate information that I talked about earlier where, you know, in the original ACA score, it just turned out differently, the effect of the mandate. And, you know, we've revised it, and we've done that with other things. After we published our analysis of the 2025 reconciliation bill, there were several academics who came to us and said, we think you missed the impact of the provision on orphan drugs. There are several very expensive drugs that would qualify for that provision that we didn't realize. And I mean, in the scheme of things, it was about $9 or $10 billion that we were off. And this time, actually, it went in some sense in the Republican favor, in the majority favor, because the cost, quote, should have been higher and we didn't see those costs. But in some sense, I was just trying to say we make mistakes in both directions and we just try to correct it and try to make sure we're not biased.

Thank you. I appreciate your attention to that because it really is a, you know, everybody's always citing CBO scoring as justification for, you know, support or not support or whether we should repeal things. And it's just so important that CBO get it right. So thank you for that. Ms. Brown, I'm going to come back to you, back to where we started. You know, when you said that your job is ensuring the federal government is efficient and effective for the taxpayers, I love that. And what we're asking you to do is oversee a ballooning federal government that we keep funding. So just to be clear at what I was getting at, it isn't that we shouldn't hold GAO accountable for how your budget is used and make sure that it's, you know, the smallest budget that does the job. I think we need to do a better job of overseeing federal outlays, we with the power of the purse, and deciding what taxpayers are getting for those outlays, which is why we created GAO. I'm afraid what we actually do too often is just continue to fund things that are already happening because they're already happening. And I'd like to work closer with GAO to make sure that we are ensuring that the federal government is efficient and effective for the taxpayers, that every tax dollar that goes out of here is doing something that is good for the taxpayers and that we have a good grasp on why we're spending it. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Maloy. I now recognize Ranking Member DeLauro for her five minutes.

Thank you very much, and thanks again to the two of you. Dr. Swagel, let me ask you because there's been a lot of talk about the debt and spending versus revenue. What impact does a $4.5 trillion tax cut without it being offset in any way, that in essence, and these are not my conclusions, you can look at economists all over the country, that the tax cuts that are going to be benefiting the richest one-tenth of one percent of the people in this country and the biggest corporations. Does that have an impact on the debt?

Yes, so our analysis said that the 2025 reconciliation bill will add $4.7 trillion to the deficit and therefore increase the debt over the next 10 years.

So it's going to increase the debt. There appears to be no concern about that 4.5, 4.7 trillion dollars added because of $4.5 trillion to the richest one-tenth of one percent to this nation. It really is pretty extraordinary that where we go. And I'll just go a step further is that, and you are not the IRS, but there's recent reports that the issue is not spending, but it is revenue. We can talk about spending and where we can cut and so forth, but it's revenue, increasing our revenues here. And a lot of that comes from, again, we have 59 of the richest corporations in this nation who pay zero in taxes. Now it's legal, and that has to do with our tax system. Zero. And another 39 of them that don't pay what they owe. The issue is revenue. And that is a place that we ought to really be attacking and looking at how we increase the revenues so that in fact we can deal with some of the issues that we do have to deal with in terms of providing for the common good, which is what we are doing. And I would just say, Ms. Williams Brown, that in my first round I spoke about the power of the purse, which is really what it is that we do here, and it's based on a bipartisan basis. And my hope, and I'm just going to leave it this way, my hope is that the power of the purse that is in the Constitution of the United States will be adhered to because that is a role and a function of the GAO and will not countenance the whims of any administration to take money that has been appropriated by this body and decide it can be used for whatever they care to use it for. And my hope is that that will be adhered to, and I don't care who the president is, Democrat or Republican. I am here to preserve the power of this committee, an Appropriations Committee, and it's the heart and soul of the federal government. Without agreement, this government shuts down. But when we do have agreement, that it cannot be abrogated by an executive. I yield back.

Thank you. I'll now yield myself five minutes for my questions. I understand that the GAO has agreed to future work, a future of work framework with its union, permitting employees to live and work in other locations outside of the Washington, D.C. area. I also understand that those employees who take that opportunity to reside outside the D.C. area were given a grace period in which to continue to be paid at Washington, D.C. pay rates. Mrs. Brown, what is the rationale for employees outside the Washington area to be paid at the D.C. rate rather than having their salaries adjusted to the rate for their new work location?

So the agreement was a negotiation to phase in. So we do have a structure where people are paid where they live, and there was a process to get people to that level. So it was a negotiated agreement and that was the rationale. In terms of the rationale for a remote workforce, GAO recognized that everyone who has skills and talents that we need doesn't necessarily want to live in Washington or a metropolitan area, so we wanted to tap into the talent across the nation. So the agreement was a negotiation to phase in. So we do have a structure where people are paid where they live, and there was a process to get people to that level. So it was a negotiated agreement and that was the rationale. In terms of the rationale for a remote workforce, GAO recognized that everyone who has skills and talents that we need doesn't necessarily want to live in Washington or a metropolitan area, so we wanted to tap into the talent across the nation.

How many GAO employees were paid this Washington, D.C. rate under this grace period?

I don't have that number, but I'm happy to provide it for the record.

And do you know so you don't know how many are still being paid?

None. The grace period's over.

The grace period is over?

Yes.

But you still don't know the exact number of how many were paid under this grace period.

Not at this exact moment.

Okay, you'll be able to provide that. Yes. How many employees would you be able to retain with cost savings your agency could achieve by paying all employees living in the areas outside of D.C. area at the appropriate locality rate?

They all they currently are being paid at their local rate.

Okay. On the cybersecurity for CBO, in fall of 2025, the CBO was hit with cyberattack by a foreign actor. The subcommittee was informed of this attack and supported the agency's work to investigate the attack and harden its systems to prevent further attacks. Dr. Swagel, or Dr. Swagel, yesterday this subcommittee held this year 2027 budget request hearing for U.S. House of Representatives. In our discussion with House officers, they agreed that the greatest security risk for the House cybersecurity attacks or the greatest security risk is cybersecurity attacks. With the CEO reporting that last year her office blocked approximately 3 billion malicious attacks to the House systems. In addition to funding staff and systems to protect the House, they noted how vital it is for all members and employees to take their annual cybersecurity training. Your funding request includes 11.4 million for most IT operations including cybersecurity. How are you also being vigilant with your employees to protect against these attacks through such programs as cybersecurity training?

Yes, thank you, sir. We do require every employee to take cybersecurity training. So that, you know, that's an annual thing. You know, the last year in some sense has been a real-world class in this. And we are much more vigilant than than we were before. So in some sense we've had, you know, both the classroom and the the the practical reality and it's something that we keep we keep working on.

All right. And then back to Ms. Brown. Quick question follow-up is Ms. Brown, can you please explain to us why human capital costs are increasing by over 6 million when you are planning to decrease employees by 146 full-time equivalents?

Yes. So the the cost of our workforce continues to increase. We have to absorb increased healthcare benefits. We also have to absorb COLA. There are other costs especially in a flat budget that we had to absorb over time. So even with our 2027 request, the requested amount supports a smaller workforce and it goes back to over 80 percent of our costs are our employees' salaries and benefits.

All right, thank you. I'm going to yield back the remainder of my time. And Mr. Hoyer, you're recognized for your five minutes.

Thank you very much. First of all, I want to make it clear, Ms. Brown, I'm a big supporter of yours. I think you're doing an excellent job and I appreciate that. And I imagine I think all the problem members of the committee share that view. But I think you're operating under constraints that are unfortunate in terms of because I think what Ms. Maloy says is we really ought to look at and Mr. Strong said as well with reference to why we have this deficit. We need to look at where we are. We need to look at the growth of the executive department as Ms. Maloy pointed out and the infinitesimal growth that accompanied that that was supposed to look after the fact that we want to make sure whatever those hundredfold folks are doing, they're doing consistent with law and consistent with efficiency and effectiveness. And it's impossible for you to do that when you have that disparate increase. So that's that's my point. I think that's the committee's responsibility and I think we ought to look at that. What do you need to do it? I argue this pretty strenuously on IRS where we have halved enforcement and while we get more money because we have more people, we don't get nearly what we should be getting in terms of what as the IRS commissioner said yesterday is owed. Not new taxes. Secondly, Dr. Swagel, let me let me speak to you. I wasn't sure of what your answer was. Are you using dynamic scoring?

We use it. It doesn't come at the front of a cost estimate, but as supplemental information. So for example, the dynamic analysis of the 2025 legislation, it turned out actually increase the deficit slightly because the positive effects of the legislation on growth were

Well, let me let me stop you there so I understand what you're saying. You said $4.7 trillion cost.

Includes the dynamic feedback.

What what does that mean? What what would the baseline?

The baseline is 3.9 trillion.

3.9 million. So it's more under dynamic scoring.

It's actually the deficit increases actually more under dynamic scoring and that's because our debt is so high because the legis

And let me tell you, the premise of those who like dynamic scoring is that will be a lot less. And the reason it is because in '01 they said the tax cut was going to get make us more money. In 2001 they said the tax cut was going to make us more money. And in 2025 they said the tax cut's going to make us more money. Those are the dynamic scoring proponents. Because they believe the economic impact of cutting taxes will spur the economy to an effect that the net will be great. It has never happened in the 45 years I've served here. Never. It has never happened. So that's why I'm against dynamic scoring. I'm surprised to hear your answer.

It's an unusual I agree it's an unusual answer. We have in some sense both the puts and the takes. So we have the impact in boosting growth, but the debt is so high that even just a little bit higher interest rate

The irony is the people who are for dynamic scoring are a trillion dollars plus less well off under the static scoring of exactly what the impact is without trying to figure in what is the economy going to do, which is very difficult to do because of course at this point in time in this presidency we would have been led to believe that the debt is halved, that the economy was growing at four times the rate it is growing at this point in time and that of course hasn't happened. That's the problem with dynamics. Your bet is a tough one and you lose too often. We would have lost every time. Every time in the 45 years I've been here with dynamic scoring on tax cuts. All of which and some very prominent economists said that wasn't going to happen, that we were going to make more money. It was baloney. And everybody who honestly looked at it knew it was baloney at the time we passed those tax cuts. $4.7 trillion. That is more than 10 percent added to the deficit. Excuse me, the debt. But it was and of course none of my side voted for it. So that 4.7 trillion is not on us. Now, spending and revenue. Let me I disagree a little bit with my ranking member for whom I have unrestrained respect. We don't have a spending problem and we don't have a revenue problem. What we have is a pay-for problem. The discipline in anybody's spending whether it's a family or a country is whether you pay for what you buy. And if you don't have to pay for it and you simply want to borrow, you can buy anything you want including spending a billion and a half a day in Iran. A billion and a half per day. We're not paying for that. And I'll bet you nobody is going to vote to pay for it. We're going to borrow it from somebody somehow. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important hearing because this deals with the guts of where our country is and where we're going to be one year, five years, 10 years, 20 years from now as to whether or not we have honest budget advice and whether or not we can make sure we're spending our money effectively. And you know, we have a lot of questions about the little specific that but those and Mr. Strong raised it, Ms. Maloy raised it, I'm glad they did, the ranking member and the chair. And Mr. Chairman, this committee is looked at as sort of as an aside. I serve on a lot of those committees like the Financial Services and General Government Committee, which deals with the revenue side. I know you're frustrated with me, I'm one minute and 30 seconds over time. Isn't that awful in talking about the debt of the United States of America? These are these are big important issues and they're not subject to one-hour hearings. And I respect you, Mr. Valadao, but I am frustrated as you can well tell. These are big important critical issues and we tend to deal with them politically as opposed to substantively.

The gentleman's time's expired. I know that. Members may submit any additional questions for the record. And I'm going to confer with my colleagues as to when we're going to start the next committee soon, but this committee stands adjourned. Thank you. The subcommittee will come to order. The subject of today's hearing is fiscal year 2027 budget request for the Architect of the Capitol. I'd like to thank Ranking Member Espaillat, Ranking Member DeLauro, subcommittee members and our witnesses, the Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Thomas Austin, Thomas Austin, for being here today. Mr. Austin, I'd like to start by thanking you and your staff for the work you do to keep the legislative branch of the government operational. We are keenly aware that this is not an easy task given the aging nature of our buildings and ever-present budget constraints. Each jurisdiction plays an important role in the operation of this institution and ensures that the people's house is beautiful, safe, and welcoming to millions of visitors that will travel to Capitol Hill this year to celebrate the nation's 250th anniversary or birthday. The Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2027 request is nearly $1.7 billion, a 105 percent increase over fiscal year 26 appropriation. Mr. Austin, we look forward to hearing additional details about your sizeable request and I now recognize my ranking member for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Austin, thank you so much for being here today. I would like to start off by thanking you and your staff for finally hanging the plaque to commemorate the heroic Capitol Police that protected members and staff on January 6. Unfortunately, it was done at 4:00 in the morning in the dead of night and in a place really that I think is not fitting for the heroic action taken by the men and women of the Capitol Police. You really have to go through a maze around the tunnels of the Capitol to get to it, and it is not in full view of the general public, which you were also protected. Those that were here visiting during that day were also protected from this angry mob that attempted to assault democracy. So I thank you for taking that initiative. It was in 2022 that language was included in the proceedings here in this very same committee to honor the men and women of the Capitol Police, and it's now 2026 and it's done in the middle of the night and in a place that's not truly accessible to the general public. So we should continue to address that shortcoming. And for years leadership has stalled to install the plaque. Yesterday I was honored to walk over there with some of my colleagues and view it for the first time. Some of us have had an easel with a cardboard plaque in front of our offices for years, including myself, to individually honor the men and women of the Capitol Police. And I would also like to thank you for keeping us up to date on the infrastructure need of the Capitol campus. I look forward to your testimony and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Espaillat. I now recognize the full committee's ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, for her opening remarks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And thank you so much for being here this morning, Mr. Austin, and for your willingness to answer our questions. I have to make one personal comment. I'm so happy always to see your team across the Capitol, especially grateful for your HVAC team's help with raising the temperature on the House floor. I just want to thank you for that again. It's always one dresses very warmly to go to the House floor to stay warm, but thank you very, very much for that. Every morning as we come to work, each of us on this panel are greeted by the great work of the Architect of the Capitol. For many reasons, a blessing to work in this body, not the least of which is because of the place. Each day we're reminded of the majesty of our democracy because it is reflected in the Capitol itself. So first and foremost, I thank you, Mr. Austin. I thank all the men and women of the Architect of the Capitol, of your office, for the work that you do to preserve and to maintain. This is a citadel of democracy and it is a place where people come to visit. And on that note, I would just say I walked over to see the plaque yesterday with a number of my colleagues and just think about the courage of the men who ran into the fray and didn't turn back and run away. And so we don't love where it's at, we love who they are, and we will continue to honor them. And so all of that work that you do does not go unnoticed. It's not to say that this great task is not without its challenges that you have, my dear. In your testimony, you talked about the current condition of the Rayburn building, of this building. I also might add that you also do state that the Cannon House building renewal project enters its closeout phase at the moment and what kind of benefits that that will provide to our community. But with regard to the Rayburn building, it is in urgent need of substantial repairs. It's evident not only from your testimony but from the experience of anyone who comes to work in the Rayburn building, including myself. It's the building's heating, it's the maintenance system, its corroded pipes, its elevators, and you've got many, many more items on your list that need to be addressed. And I don't believe you're crying wolf that this is critical at this juncture. So it's not just about an occasional inconvenience, there are plenty of those, but it is about the safety of the staff and the members and the visitors who come here and our constituents who make the journey to this nation's capital to avail themselves of a representative government. So the deterioration of this building poses a safety risk. It's critical that we act quickly to provide the Architect of the Capitol with the resources that you need to begin these repairs without delay. There'll be much discussion about this this morning and the questions, so I thank you again and I look forward to your answers. But I am going to say this, it's a busy day. I will want to hear your testimony and then I will have to depart, but I want to know that obviously I'm always available for you all to come in and brief, etc., on what the issues are and how we can be able to provide you with the resources. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you, Mr. Austin. Your full testimony has been submitted for the record and you are now recognized to provide a summary of your written testimony.

Good morning, Chairman Valadao, Ranking Member Espaillat, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you representing the men and women of the Architect of the Capitol to discuss our budget request and priorities for fiscal year 2027. I appreciate this subcommittee's continued support and would like to offer my sincere thanks to the members of your staff who work directly with the agency, particularly Lori Rowley, April Lyman, and Faye Cobb, for their expertise and consistent professionalism. I look forward to sharing the hard work of the agency in serving the needs of Congress while preserving the historic buildings and grounds that inspire 30,000 daily occupants and four million annual visitors to the Capitol campus. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the 2,600 dedicated Architect of the Capitol employees for their unwavering commitment and professionalism to preserve and maintain over 18.5 million square feet of facilities, 570 acres of grounds, and thousands of works of art. Serving as the 13th Architect of the Capitol has been the greatest privilege of my career, and since assuming this role in June of 2024, I have been continually inspired by the dedication and expertise of our workforce. My top priority is fostering consistent, transparent communication across the agency and with members and their staff in order to maintain trust and confidence in our agency's leadership. For fiscal year 2027, the Architect of the Capitol is requesting a total of $1.6 billion to address critical infrastructure needs, correct life safety and physical security issues, preserve historic assets, and invest in modernization efforts across the Capitol campus. This request is substantially larger than previous years due to two main factors. First, facility repair projects from prior years that were not funded continue to compound in the form of deferred maintenance, resulting in increased risk of system failures. Second, this funding request includes major initiatives from the AOC's master plan, particularly the much-needed renovation of the Rayburn House Office Building. One of my top priorities since assuming my role as the Architect has been to get a deep understanding of the condition of the facilities and infrastructure across the Capitol. To guide our long-term strategic planning efforts, we are completing the Capitol Complex Master Plan, which outlines infrastructure requirements and the agency's recommendations for the entire Capitol campus over the next few decades. The goal of this assessment is to assist Congress with long-term planning and budgetary decisions. Based on my personal observations and the evaluation of the facility assessments by my staff and third-party professionals, I am most concerned with the level of risk of a catastrophic system failure in Rayburn. The condition of Rayburn is at a critical juncture and time is of the essence. We are experiencing major challenges each day that impact our ability to keep this facility functional for the needs of Congress. In the past year alone, we have had two electrical fires, multiple major mechanical system failures, dozens of elevator and escalator outages, and 18 major leaks costing nearly $2 million in repairs. These major projects often require offices to be relocated for weeks or months at a time, placing an additional burden on congressional staff and the ability of the members to do their jobs. While it is important to continue investment in major projects in Rayburn, such as replacing its air handler units which are well beyond their useful life, there is still the need for a full building renovation. For example, aging utilities hidden behind the walls can only be addressed by an extensive and invasive construction project requiring significant portions of the building to be vacated for an extended time. Additionally, this work would require extensive remediation of hazardous materials such as lead and asbestos. These conditions reinforce one of the major lessons learned from the Cannon project, which was the need to separate congressional activities from construction activities to the maximum extent possible. We have requested funding in fiscal year 2027 to further develop the designs of the Rayburn renovation and the required swing space, and to also address current and future parking requirements, which would be necessary throughout the duration of the project. I appreciate the discussions we've had over the past 18 months highlighting the urgency of a full renovation of the building and the requirements for swing space, because strategic investment now reduces long-term costs and risks. Maintaining and modernizing the Capitol campus is a central part of our mission and our biggest challenge. This requires a proactive, comprehensive approach to facilities management, addressing both routine and complex matters. With your continued support and the exceptional dedication of our workforce, we have made meaningful progress over the past year and are well-positioned to advance vital initiatives in the year ahead. Chairman Valadao, Ranking Member Espaillat, and members of this subcommittee, thank you again for your continued support and consideration of the Architect of the Capitol's budget request. I am honored to be here today and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Austin, for your testimony. We will now begin the question portion of the hearing. I will call on members based on their seniority of those present when the hearing was called to order, alternating between majority and minority, followed by members in order of their arrival. Each will have five minutes, and I now recognize myself. Mr. Austin, in the legislative branch report that accompanies our bill each year, we include instructions that all agencies develop their budget utilizing a zero-based approach. Can you describe to us the method your agency takes to develop your budget from zero-base?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So zero-based budget is something we are still implementing with our agency. We are working through it with the 2028 budget request right now. We actually just had our first training session on it. We look at the requirements and we try to baseline it across the different job specialties throughout the agency. We are a very broad agency with a lot of different trades, everything from the technical trades like plumbing and electrical and masonry and those things, to professional services, safety professionals, visitor guides, botanic garden specialists. So developing those baselines is a challenging task as we try to figure out what is the right level. So we examine it from a lot of ways. We track all of our work order requests, which helps with our wage grade workforce to figure out how many work order requests need to be serviced each year. Currently it's over 500,000 across the Capitol campus. And then we also look at things like our number of visitors we have at the Capitol Visitor Center, as well as the number of visitors at the Botanic Garden. So as we develop these requests, we look at our previous years' work and we look at our future year requirements, and then we build from there based on the priorities we're given from Congress and as we interpret them here in my office at the Architect of the Capitol.

Thank you. The committee is aware of and concerned about the ever-growing backlog of deferred maintenance and renewal projects that are required around the campus. Due to poor design and delays in executing funds requested of and provided by this committee, we are, with increased frequency, seeing cost overruns that are often up to or greater than 50 percent. These projects are often related to life safety, leaving the committee with no choice but to approve additional funding. Mr. Austin, what is your agency doing to improve designs, limit delays in executing funds, and ensure cost estimates are as accurate as possible so we can utilize funds for additional projects rather than funding the same project multiple times?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the request, and I always look forward to the chance to explain how we do project development in the agency, and I'll try to do it very quickly because I know we're pressed on time. First thing we do is always look for the program requirements. What's what are we trying to fix, what are we trying to address? That leads us to a request for funding for a design. Once we receive the funding for that design, then during that design we try to articulate those as how we're going to fix it. That generates a cost estimate that then goes into a funding cycle for appropriation for the construction of it. And then the construction, once we receive those funds, takes about 18 months, sometimes a little bit less, we try to condense that time as much as we can to get that contract awarded. And then once the contract's been awarded and we go into construction, it can be anywhere from six months to two years for that to be done. During that time we have funds on hand to take care of all that work. Now, to go specifically to the part you're addressing. So some of our work that we do, as I said just a moment ago, is very broad. We have a lot of specialty trades. Those are very susceptible to cost swings, whether it be labor costs, material costs, or just the ability of or availability of contractors who can do work on Capitol Hill with the security and the access requirements we put onto them. And so some of these things, especially with life safety when we're referring to, which might be fire protection, those can be susceptible to cost swings as much as 30 percent per year. Very difficult to get those cost estimates right in the year that we are requesting that funding. And every year it's not funded, like in the request these, that increases that level of risk that we will have a cost swing, usually unfortunately in the more expensive direction. We're trying to fix that by having what we call early contractor involvement, getting them involved earlier in the design process so we can see what's constructible, what they need, what kind of information they can to get tighten up those cost estimates, and then get those to the Appropriations Committee so that we can have not just the right amount for the construction but also the cost estimate, I'm sorry, the contingency. Because working in historic structures is difficult. Oftentimes we're not allowed to see what's behind the walls until we start the demolition phase of the construction. Oftentimes we are surprised because of the materials that were used 10, 50, or even 100 years ago. And so sometimes we miss the mark and we try to correct that by putting enough contingency, but occasionally we do come to the committee for reprogram requests. But we are all looking for ways to improve our best practices.

All right, thank you. Mr. Austin, in my opening statement I mentioned America 250. The Library of Congress visitor experience master plan was envisioned to be a centerpiece of legislative branch celebrations. While the treasures gallery is operational and the youth center is expected to open to the public in the near future, the committee was deeply disappointed to learn the AOC will not complete its work in time to turn the orientation gallery over to the Library of Congress for any portion of the America 250 celebrations. We've learned that the extensive delay is until at least July 2027 is due to lead paint remediation, replacing the flooring, and installing a fire-rated ceiling. Hazardous materials remediation, including lead paint and asbestos, is the one thing that every single preservation project starts with. Can you share with the committee why these items are considered unforeseen site conditions and why we're learning of this 11-month schedule delay now, when the AOC has briefed the committee many times over the past year without previously indicating such potential impact? Presumably your agency always plans for lead paint remediation when working on historic buildings.

So Chairman, you summarized a lot of the challenges we've had. The lead paint was one factor, but it was not the factor. You're absolutely correct. Lead paint remediation, asbestos remediation is something that's common to a lot of construction projects we have on campus. Specifically for the orientation gallery, the biggest problems were actually with the floor and the ceiling. And we didn't know the issues of those until we did the demolition. In the floor, it was delamination between the terrazzo level and the concrete that we had on there, so that had to be fixed before we could fix it, or before we could put a new floor on top of it. And in the ceiling, we didn't know the full extent of that. We have to have a two-hour fire barrier in the ceiling. We thought we could count on the fire dampers that were installed many years ago, but in the interim decades they've installed a lot of conduit for data cables and power cables running through those. And we went through a design process to see if it would be easier to pull all those cables out and reroute them or just to redo the fire, the two-hour fire ceiling. And we went with the ceiling aspect, but that did cause a significant delay, over 200 days just in that aspect.

Right, thank you. My time's expired. I now recognize my Ranking Member Espaillat for his five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Austin, as you approach your second year leading the Architect of the Capitol, you've inherited a substantial and complicated project portfolio. While I support the south screening security vestibule and recognize the urgency of replacing the Rayburn House Office Building, I remain deeply concerned that about the AOC's ability to deliver these projects on a timely basis and within budget. Do you believe AOC's current organizational structure is capable of managing the size and the scope of these projects, and will you deliver them on time and within budget?

Ranking Member, thank you for the question. The short answer to your question is yes. And the second part of that was on time and on budget. We do that to the best of our ability for every project. The we have the to take on the work of Rayburn, which would be the largest construction project in the AOC's history, certainly in terms of dollar value. We have the structure in place from a management perspective to handle that, but we would need to bring on additional staff. Those would be project-funded staff, they would be paid for from the funds for the project itself, not going towards our base. But we have the ability to bring on that additional staff as well as contractor support when it comes to construction management services or additional support from the contractors themselves for submittals and designs and things like that.

And what's the time frame? I mean, I've been part of some of the meetings discussing Rayburn. What's the time frame for this project?

Well, the time frame for the project really depends on the funding we receive from the committee and the choice that we decide to make when it comes to swing space.

What is the estimated time?

The estimated time to if we do it the way we've recommended, which we've briefed the committee on earlier this year, is that we would begin the work with some of the enabling projects, which is the parking garage and some of the contractor space as we've talked about. That would go on for the next couple years, then we'd start the work on the swing space building. While during that time we do the design for the swing space building, construct the swing space structure however we choose to do that, whether it be a renovation or a new construction. And then we would work on the Rayburn. Overall, the total program length for Rayburn is extensive, it's 15 to 20 years. So we're talking about the mid-2045s before we would be complete with it based on all the enabling functions and the length of the construction program we're talking about. It's a huge project and it requires us to to start working on some of those aspects right away.

I'm glad to hear that I'll be around to see the finished product. And but one question that I had was there are several buildings that are being looked at as sort of like holding place buildings for this renovation, including the Library of Congress, right? And O'Neill, which is a a wonderful building but is somewhat a bit away from campus, is heavily underutilized. And and I've I've been one that has advocated for access to O'Neill to help us have available space while this is this project is undergoing. I know that it's probably impossible to build tunnels leading to O'Neill, but there may be other option including ramps overground. What's your opinion on the use of O'Neill, which is currently I think heavily underutilized?

There is space in the O'Neill for some staff to move out. When we were looking at the requirements for swing space, we very much appreciate the guidance we received both from this committee and Committee on House Administration as far as what the unique needs were for the Congress people themselves. Specifically being having their office within a 10-minute walk to the chamber in order to do votes. And then because of security as you alluded to with having some form of tunnel access, some kind of secure access from office to chamber. So given that, it would be difficult to utilize O'Neill. But beyond that, just the scale of it isn't quite what we'd be looking for. Even if we utilized all the available space in the O'Neill as it's currently allocated, that's about 70,000, 80,000 square feet, which is base barely one-tenth what we'd be needing to do the Rayburn renovation in the way that we'd like it to do in the two phases in order to maximize the efficiency. So it could help in in the margins, I think, but it would not be a solution in and of itself.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Strong for his five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Valadao, and thank you, Mr. Austin, for being here today. We appreciate your leadership and the work your team does to keep the Capitol campus safe, functional, and forward-looking. Mr. Austin, the Capitol Complex Master Plan lays out a 20-year strategy for the campus. How often is that plan updated, and are there projects currently in the master plan that AOC believes may no longer be necessary or should be reprioritized?

Thank you for the question. The ideally the master plan should be updated every five years with a 20-year horizon, so ideally it's always at least 15 years out. Unfortunately, for a variety of factors, I think probably due to the complex nature of a master plan of this size and various other factors having to do with my agency and Congress, the last one was done in 2011, so we are very far behind in this. We are finishing the final phase of the complex Capitol Complex Master Plan, which should be complete this summer. And so the projects that are being formulated in the current version of the CCMP, I don't believe there's any in there that we don't believe are no longer needed. In the one from 2011, there's probably several in there. I couldn't probably speak to specifics because it is almost 15 years old at this point. But I do believe it's a vital document to guide our planning in the campus.

Thank you. The Rayburn renovation will require sustained funding over multiple years. What happens to the project schedule if Congress cannot provide the full funding ramp you've projected, and how much delay would result from a one-year funding shortfall?

The answer to this one, unfortunately, is it's a bit of a depends. Depends on how much we received at the front end of the project, where we were in the construction. But if say if we did not receive funding this year for the items that we're asking for, it would delay the program exactly a year until the next time we had a chance to receive funding. The enabling projects we have right now are what's considered on the critical path. And the critical path means you must do these before you can do the next part. And so if we don't do these projects now, that will push back the entirety of the program because the program for Rayburn, when you consider parking and swing space and the renovation itself and demobilization and all that, is a program, a series of projects. So delaying the first project will delay the whole program up to a year at this point.

Thank you. Has AOC developed a contingency plan in case a major system fails before renovation begins?

Yes, we have to a certain extent. Unfortunately, the swing space internal, if we had a major facility outage like one we faced in October, would not we do not have that space on hand, at least not to the standards I believe Congress requires. We would have to if we had more than I believe more than 12 offices affected by any outage, that would require us to use ad hoc space, things like committee hearing rooms for offices, things like common spaces, whether it be amenity space or otherwise, in order to place staff in order to restore functionality, but it would not be adequate just because those facilities just do not exist. So we have it to a certain extent, Congressman.

We're talking a lot about Rayburn today, but I'm also concerned about Longworth. Could we be on the same path? Mr. Austin, what is the current condition rating for Longworth, and what does AOC expect that building to require? Is you looking at major renovations there? I know that it appears from the outside that's what it looks like.

Again, thank you. It's part of our whole plan. We do not believe we have the capacity to do both Rayburn and Longworth at the same time for those swing space requirements. But that would be the next one after Rayburn on the House side of campus that we would be concerned to do is Longworth. Longworth is rated as poor. It does need some work in a lot of ways. It has some of the same issues. Interestingly enough, it's an older building than Rayburn, but because of the way it was constructed and the work that's been done over the years, we've been able to extend its life cycle. So Rayburn is in objectively a worse state than Longworth, but Longworth is not far behind and we would look to do it if not immediately after Rayburn, very shortly thereafter.

Thank you. Switching gears a little bit, members and staff continue to raise concerns about entrance points and remain that remain closed or operating with limited hours. How many public or staff entrances on the House side are currently not operating at full capacity, and what are the primary reasons for those limitations?

I'm unfortunately I'm going to have to defer that one to the Capitol Police, Congressman. That is not a facility issue necessarily, that is a staffing issue for the Capitol Police in order to do screening. I do sit on the Capitol Police Board, but I don't have those numbers at hand, but I can work with the Capitol Police to get them to you.

Thank you. I'd also like to close with one of the favorite topics. Could you tell us how much elevator work across the House office buildings today is planned preventive maintenance versus emergency repairs, and is the elevator and escalators, is that in-house or is that a contract outside of our employees that work for the government?

So that is a is a long topic of conversation. I'm happy to to get with you later on, but I'll give you the summary as best I can. As of I sit here in this chair right now, we have 84 of the 85 elevators across campus are operational. One was down this morning, so it was 83 of 85 when I woke up this morning, it's 84 now, we've got one fixed. And there were 27 of 28 escalators across the House side of campus are operational. But many of these elevators and escalators are original to the building, the vast majority of them are, and they suffer from a lot of the same issues we talked about with Rayburn, fatigue of the components, the age of the motors, the the people who who made these things are no longer in service. So we have in our budget request for 27 a $4 million ask to in order to start a round-robin approach to start replacing the elevators across campus. That would be a multi-year approach, that's a 15 to 20-year program in and of itself, we'd be funding in each year. And we also have a elevator monitoring program, which we've started last year and we're implementing more fully this year, which we right now is just in Cannon and a little bit with Longworth, but we're looking to implement that across the entire campus so we have more real-time response for elevator outages and also the ability to monitor more closely.

Thank you, Mr. Austin. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Strong. I now recognize the full committee's ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, for five minutes.

Thank you very, very much. Mr. Austin, just a just a couple of things. Expand on what what will happen if we cannot work in this building. What happens to the 184 member offices? Where will we work as an alternative? What is your what is the I mean maybe there are multiple plans for that. And then my last question would be, which has to do with safety, and that's a priority I think for all of us. So with regard to the on the method you plan to invest in improving pedestrian screening.

Ma'am, thank you for the question. So I'll try to take this in order as far as the alternative sites. We have, as I was speaking earlier, there are plans. It basically it depends on the extent of the outage. I can give you a for instance of what happened back in October with Rayburn. We had 40 percent of one of the wings was out without circulated air. Fortunately, this happened when Congress was not in session, it was temperate times, we were able to have the the grace to fix it in a in a deliberate manner. But that would have impacted as many as 25 different suites, and we do not have that many swing spaces available if it is a serious outage that will take multiple weeks or months to to remediate. We'd work with the Speaker's office and with CHA as well as this committee in order to figure out how we would go about it, putting them in temporary spaces, like I said before, in committee spaces, staff areas. We'd have to relocate some staff, things like that. We'd also be able to work in emergency status to try to get these suites functional again, in which case we might need to bring in temporary cooling plants or temporary heating and ventilation or perhaps even outside generators to be brought in in order to to restore. But that can take weeks, at least weeks, sometimes months depending on what we're talking about. So we do have plans, but it's very much dependent on the size of the outage. Unfortunately, we do not have one if it takes as I spoke about earlier with the catastrophic failure, that that space just does not exist on campus. So we utilize what we have in concert with our oversight committees as well as the Speaker's office in order to figure out what that would look like. But it would have to be it would be a bit ad hoc and a bit for what we've planned. We do have some swing spaces, but not enough. Now speaking about safety, I know this has come up before and I do want to reemphasize that safety is the number one priority for the AOC for the person for the staff and the members and the visitors to these buildings. And even though these buildings do have lead and asbestos in them, they are encapsulated and contained right now, so there's no day-to-day problem with hazardous material. It happens when we have say a large leak or we have to do work in the building and then there becomes what's called friable, it gets we have to do the remediation for it, but there's no day-to-day safety threats from that. It only when we have to do the work that becomes a complicating factor, a significant complicating factor. As far as the other aspects for safety, obviously we're talking about fire safety, fire suppression systems, that's part of our our budget request even in this year, but it's a pretty standard one as we modernize our systems, which in case in some cases are many decades old. So we're concerned about fire safety as well as life life and health safety as well. And as far as screening that you asked about the south screen facility, and that will be a disruptive program on the south side of campus. The south door into the Capitol building will remain open, there will be some alternate pathways to get there. There will be some disruption on the East Plaza, but we've worked it with the House Sergeant at Arms as well as the Speaker's office to make sure that for instance the carriage door would still be accessible, that we'd still be able to bring vehicles in through the south screening checkpoints. We'd still be able to have a functionality there. And we're working with both like I said Speaker's office, CHA, this committee, and the House Sergeant at Arms to make sure that those effects are minimized to the extent that we can. Unfortunately, there will be some disruption. The project is going to begin this summer, it will be complete early fall of 2028, so we're trying to make sure it's done well in advance of inauguration.

Are there plans for any kinds of new technology etcetera to deal with the screening of folks who are coming coming into the building? Again, it's a piece of the safety.

I know we have the body scanners and we have the magnetometers, which are going to be part of that. That is incorporated into the designs, that's more of a USCP House Sergeant at Arms requirement that they're giving us. So but we do have the cap I mean there's the infrastructure will be there to support that.

Just final thing is you you talked about this kind of like a first phase, and that's what the the funding that you're requesting. What is that first phase? What are the three or four steps that you're doing? You mentioned parking so forth. What what do you need to do to get to phases two, three, four, and five?

Sure, I believe you're referring to the Rayburn renovation.

Yes, Rayburn, I'm so sorry.

Yes. So with the Rayburn renovation, yes, the first phase we have the enabling projects and there's three specific smaller parts to it. The biggest of those three and smaller is relative term, but three projects is the parking garage. We believe that structured parking, we're going to need that no matter how we do Rayburn because Rayburn has over 1,500 parking spaces in it and at some point we're going to lose a large portion of that and so we have to offset that somehow. That's why that we believe that's a key enabling project. Similarly, we want to renovate the old House Page Dorm facility so that we can turn that into a contractor and contract administration space. And we want to remove the construction trailers from Cannon, which are currently on lot one adjacent to the south side of the Cannon building. So that's the enabling programs and that's part of our request for this year. We're also requesting money for the design of whatever swing space option Congress decides on, as well as to begin the programmatic parts about how we're going to do the Rayburn renovation itself, its design. So there's money for designs that's in this year for swing space and Rayburn and then the enabling projects.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. DeLauro. I now recognize Ms. Maloy for her five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Austin, in your testimony you talked about the Cannon renewal project and during its closeout phase. My office is in Cannon. When can we expect that work to be completed?

So all of the interior work in Cannon with very few exceptions is complete now. We're closing out the courtyard and that's going to amazing project because if you look at the before and after it was just basically a big area where you had a bunch of air handler units and very industrial looking, now it's going to be an open park for our staff and our visitors. So I'm really excited to have that one open up, especially as the weather gets warmer and everything turns green. It's really going to be amazing to see.

My office window looks at that. I've watched every phase of it and it does look much better now.

It does. It's amazing project. We have a few ancillary projects that are we're finishing closing out with our contractor, things like a southeast terrace and the trash enclosure. We're just finishing up some utility work in a thing called one of our electrical vaults that's there. And then the last thing is going to be repairing the sidewalks. So we believe in the next 60 days all of the major construction works, so early May, mid-May timeframe we should see the vast majority of the hard hats be left off the project, at least from the contractor perspective. My own team has some work. We had unfortunately some stone that came in that did not meet our standards. We're waiting for that stone to be replaced, but we'll get that fixed. But this summer that all should be done and then we're just in contract closeout.

Okay. Thank you. Every year this subcommittee provides the various divisions of your office with funding for specific line item construction projects. And the funding is provided based on your office's best estimate for the cost of those projects. But recently we've been receiving requests for additional funds for these projects through your minor construction accounts to close gaps on cost overruns, including for an important system for the Rayburn building that we've been talking about. These overruns can often be related to delays in putting projects out to bid. What systems are you putting in place to prevent these kinds of cost overruns that have increased some projects by as much as 50 percent?

So we are always keen to get our cost estimates right. Some of it is like I spoke a little bit about this earlier, but some of this has to do with the nature of the work working in historic structures. Sometimes we're not exactly sure what the conditions are going to be. It's called unforeseen site conditions. Sometimes we have delays in getting the funding for what we put in and we've had cost escalation because of inflation or just the price swings from some of these very narrow trades with only a few contractors that are available to work on it. So we are trying to bring down our time to award. We're looking at alternative contracting methods so we can do the whole metaphorical carrots and sticks for the contractor, but also bring the contractors in early through some construction management assistance as well as get early contractor involvement to bring them in in order to get a better idea of what they need as a contractor in order to understand what they're looking for in their bids so we can have more transparency in the bidding process. We have a standard that we implemented that from the time we receive funding, every project that was funded from the line item construction program is awarded within 18 months so that funding is just not sitting there. That is our goal. Sometimes we have issues where projects are overlapping, at least in the space, and we have to wait and delay that. That's we try to deconflict that beforehand, but we don't always receive full clarity on our funding requests until we see them in the bill and so it's sometimes hard to deconflict that. But we are working better to give a better visualization to the members of Congress and their staff for what our contracts are going to be impacting the campus over the next few years. But as far as in terms of tightening up our cost estimates, we want to be do better job in getting our program requirements and our designs right on the front end so we're not ask for money in the execution.

Thanks. With major work coming up on Rayburn and the work that needs to be done on the Capitol before inauguration, it would be great to make sure we're not having those same problems through all the phases of that. But given the scale of the Rayburn project and other capital needs, does the AOC currently have the workforce and the project management capacity to execute the work without significant delays or cost overruns?

So we do have the ability to add staff to for projects, called project funded people. We have did the very same thing with the Cannon project. We also have the ability to bring in outside support, whether it be from a civilian construction management advisory firm or from outside government agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the GSA to bring in additional support as needed. Fortunately for a program like Rayburn, we're going to be several years in design and then we're also going to be several years as we're working out our swing space issues. So we have a ramp up period when we get to the really labor intensive piece, which is going to be the project management or project or construction management, and we have the ability to bring on additional staff to support that. So we'll have a ramp up period for that. We do have the framework in place from a management perspective to handle that, but we will need bring on more staff.

Okay. Well, I am just about out of time, so I will yield back. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Maloy. I now recognize Mr. Hoyer for his five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. What decisions will we be making in this budget which will impact the schedule on Rayburn?

So we have five specific funding requests related to Rayburn in this. The first and the biggest one, of course, is the parking garage, which we believe is important for the project.

How much is that?

That's $205 million. And we're asking for all of the money up front in order to shorten the time from because we believe it's a fairly straightforward design, we don't believe we need to be a long time in design, we want to get that into construction as soon as possible, but we need that money up front for that. So that's $205 million we're asking in order to not only do design but also do the construction of the parking garage. Additionally, we have two design requests in the budget, which is again the design for the Rayburn renovation itself, the building itself, how we want to go about that, and then whatever option Congress decides on for swing space, the money to support that design, reconfigure, design the reconfiguration of spaces or potentially a new building or reconfiguring an existing building.

How much is that?

It's $25 and $22 million respectively. And then on top of that, we also have another million dollars that we're requesting for the design for the renovation of the House Page dorm facility to turn that into usable facility. That's been about 10 years it's been mothballed ever since that program was shut down, but we believe we can utilize that asset to move the contractor activities a little bit further off campus and give them a dedicated space to do that work. And then there's additional money for the movement of the trailers in lot one.

Let me make one last observation. The water pressure in Longworth, I've been in Longworth my entire career. The water pressure in the last I think maybe couple months, maybe three months longer, is very, very low, which impacts on any interior fire suppression ability we have as opposed to extrinsic fire departments. What's the status of that? I've called my office has called a couple times about that and what's the status of that? Do you know?

So I don't know the specific issue with with Longworth's water pressure, but I can for the the domestic water, which is the service that comes out of the faucets and the toilets and those kind of things. When it comes to fire suppression, those are those are on separate pumps. So if we ever did get into an experience where or situation where we need to activate the fire suppression systems, those have their own dedicated pumps. So that's not they're they're 150 PSI whereas usually the water that comes out your faucet's about 30 to 50 PSI for for instance, just to put a scale to it. I would have to check with my House office building superintendent, but I can get you an answer immediately after this since he's sitting right behind me.

Right. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. I now recognize Mr. Moore for his five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hosting this second hearing of the day. And thank you Mr. Austin for being here. Last year I had the chance to ask you about how we can make the Capitol campus more family friendly and I had inquired about the status of the Capitol's lactation rooms and asked what additional resources your office would need to expand access to these spaces for nursing mothers. You told me your team was awaiting the results of a study looking into the need for lactation rooms across the campus and considering potential modifications to the 17 lactation suites that are already available. Today I would like to follow up on that line of questioning and discuss what efforts we can make to ensure families are welcome here in the Capitol both as visitors as well as members and staff. So your team's study found that the Capitol campus has 16 fewer lactation stations than required. It is also concluded that 25 of the current 61 lactation spaces do not meet your standards for quality. Can you please speak a little more to the results of your study and what efforts your team is making to expand access to lactation rooms and improve the quality of existing rooms?

Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman. We did receive a million dollars in funding in FY 24 both to do studies and initial designs. During that time we did do the study and I appreciate that you gave the you have the exactly correct numbers on here. So there are five total station or five total suites on the House side of campus plus additional two in the Capitol building. Of those 61 stations across campus that you spoke about, there's 37 that are specifically on the south side of campus. We have done some renovations and we have written a new AOC standard for lactation suites to make sure that we're bringing those up to compliance utilizing the ADA. I am privileged to sit on the accessibility board here on the Capitol campus and I certainly work with the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services to make sure that they have what they need in those suites. We have two in the Capitol building, ST-71 and HC-3 are the specific room numbers that are going to be going under undergoing renovations this summer in order to make them more usable and more user friendly. We also are looking to do a design for a universal changing station in the Capitol Visitor Center. That will be utilized both for adults and for children as far as changing and that's also going to be happening this summer.

All right. And then finally just one last question. I can imagine that you're expecting increased foot traffic obviously in the Capitol this year, especially this summer for America 250. I expect many of those visitors will be families. Is your team doing anything in particular to accommodate the influx of families and is there any way that our committee can support you in that effort?

Well, I'm certainly excited about America's 250th and the 250th celebrations we're having here. Had a lot of discussions with my team about how to make that a much a very special event for families and any visitors that come to our Capitol campus. Capitol Visitor Center is going to be doing some decorations and we're getting the designs for those. We we just got the approval for the time capsule looking forward to that event. But as far as making it more welcoming, we have special programs in the Capitol Visitor Center that are specifically targeted for families, things like scavenger hunts and as well as a new program in the Capitol Visitor Center talking about the semiquincentennial and then the different celebrations they've had over the year. And I invite everyone to come down to Exhibition Hall and to view that. As far as the accessibility issues with it, we are bringing additional staff over the summer specifically for this event. We we do that every summer, but we're bringing in more this summer for the 250th in anticipation of larger crowds. And our Capitol Visitor guides and visitor assistants are always available to assist families to moving around campus.

All right. Very much appreciate that. And lastly, as you mentioned potentially using the Library of Congress as a transition space, you can sign me up for that. You can put me over there, Jefferson building please. With that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. I now recognize Mr. LaLota for his five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Austin, how you doing?

I'm doing well, Congressman. Thank you.

Good. We met a few weeks ago and we talked about the Rayburn renovations and I think you recall that I provided some skepticism about the conclusions that you came to with respect to the options you presented. Are you still requesting an FY 27 to further develop the Rayburn renovation designs, the required swing spaces, and the related parking needs?

I am.

And before you narrowed your proposals down to the two major relocation concepts, neither of which is near ideal because each of them cost almost as much as a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, did you consider any other options such as renovating Rayburn in phases like you're doing in Cannon and who exactly outside of the AOC's office did you consult in that process?

So over the years, this is we have studied many swing space concepts over the years. We've had two different outside studies that took place. We had one that was called a Blue Ribbon Panel, that report came in February 2020. And then we had a dedicated third party assessment and development of options that came in last...

Who did the study, sir?

Say again?

Who did the study?

Quinn Evans, I think. It was it was I probably get you the exact names of the A and E firms. I hesitate to give out specific contractor names, but I could certainly give it immediately afterwards.

If you could follow up with that, I'd appreciate it. Did you have any in depth consultations with the House Sergeant at Arms, the CAO, or members themselves?

We've been talking with members for about 18 months and on and off with the committees, especially our first briefing about swing space and the need for Rayburn was about 18 months ago, I think September 2024 we had that.

With which members did you speak, sir?

With CHA and we also had representation from the chair and the ranking member from the Appropriations Committee.

But not the members themselves?

I do not believe we had you in there.

And who from the CAO did you specifically speak in depth with?

That was we've had it with the staff. Mostly this has been staff coordination.

Who do you think about that? Who from the Sergeant at Arms did you specifically speak with, sir?

I'm sorry, say again?

Who from the Sergeant at Arms office did you specifically, if any? Because I'm hearing that you may not have had the in depth conversations that maybe this $9 billion proposal that you're presenting us, that maybe you didn't have the in depth conversations with folks who are key to this. So the question is, who from the Sergeant at Arms office did you have in depth conversations with about your $9 billion proposal?

So we've had conversations at the staff level with House Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Capitol Police, House CAO. I've had in general conversations with the the leaders of both organizations back in...

You get my frustration. You're asking for a lot of money on something that's not traditional. We've seen in this bill in this campus these projects happen by phases. You're proposing to build totally new buildings that we don't know what we're going to do with 20 years afterwards. We don't necessarily want to expand. We don't know there's going to be more than 435 members. You're asking for $9 billion in a new thing and we feel like you haven't talked as much to all the right people in particular. So my question is, how can we possibly consider your $9 billion proposal when you haven't had in-depth conversations with key stakeholders?

Yes. So we have had conversations with many stakeholders to get us to this point, including the Blue Ribbon Study in 2020, the one we had in 2025, looked at 16 different options across a variety of circumstances.

You're explaining internally what you did with an outside group that did a study. I've asked you about the Sergeant at Arms office, the CAO, and members. And I didn't really hear much specifics about conversations you have with key stakeholders there. I heard a little bit about staff coordination that seemed loose in the last 18 months. But you're asking for a $9 billion project and when I asked you questions about with whom did you specifically speak, I didn't hear much specificity. If you'd like to correct the record, I'll give the floor back to you.

Okay. So this project, number one, the swing space options are still on the table. We have not decided where we're at. We still have multiple years of design. We're going to have very in-depth conversations with all those stakeholders to make sure we get the program correct.

But you're asking us to dip our toes in the water first to put you down a path that could cost $9 billion. And we all know these projects are almost always not on time and they're almost always over cost. So while you're advertising nine today, we know by history this probably leaked to 13, 14, 15 billion dollars. And you're asking us to go down this path without having presented us enough foundational information or have enough foundational conversations with key stakeholders. And this isn't just a habitability issue like what the water pressure is in my office. This we're asking to spend 10, 12, 15 billion dollars of our taxpayers' money and there's not enough foundation to it.

I think I believe I'm happy to bring you to any part of the Rayburn building. I'm happy to go to the foundational assessments of this. But I think what we're asking for right now is approval from the committee to go start looking at the design and swing space options associated with Rayburn. I believe we have a consensus among all the stakeholders you spoke to that Rayburn does need a full building renovation.

I'm telling you you don't have that consensus. I'm telling you you don't have that consensus. Okay. I'm telling you as somebody who sits on this committee and who's going to be asked to vote yes or no on your proposal, you do not have that consensus. And there's a lot of skepticism from the offices I named, from the members who sit on this dais up here, there's a lot of skepticism. I highly suggest, sir, that between now and the time that we cast that vote on your proposal, that you get a larger consensus amongst key stakeholders who have to put their necks on the line for what you're asking.

Understand, sir. And I'm happy to follow up with you directly and get on your calendar to go through the assessments as well as any other member of the committee.

Let's do it. I'm going to round it off with this last question. It's going to be a little easier for you. When can the trailers be expected to remove from Lot 1 so members can resume utilizing the entire lot for parking?

Yes. That's part of the request for FY 27 is to get those trailers removed. That's part of the request we're trying to look at for the options to have contractor space in order to support the renovation program. Now we can remove the trailers without replacement, but we need to figure out some way to put the contractors. So it is scheduled for the summer as far as what we're looking for the options to do. But we're also looking for where we're going to put those contractors for that support that we're utilizing those trailers for right now.

Thanks. I look forward to working with you on Rayburn. Sir. I yield.

Thank you, Mr. LaLota. If there are no further questions, I'd like to thank Mr. Austin for being here today. Members may submit additional questions for the record and I'd like to give my ranking member an opportunity to make some closing remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Austin. Thank you for your testimony today. Obviously, this is the Rayburn project is a big budget ticket item that requires us to really be on schedule with the funding request that you made. Otherwise, this could roll into a 30, even a 40-year project. And so we're hopeful that you'll bring us practical proposals that we can look at and address and that the budget commitment to the renovation of this building is one that we hold in this committee as a priority. But I kind share the opinion of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that much more discussion needs to be had about this particular project. I yield back.

Thank you again, Mr. Austin. And again, members may submit any additional questions for the record and this committee stands adjourned.