Mr. WHITE. Well, that is true; it is unique in that sense. It is not unique in terms of experience of difficulty with work being done in other cities. We had difficulty on the James Madison Memorial Building with one of the consultants to the architect in which the work was done in Dallas. We were back and forth to Dallas with our people and his people- Mr. BENJAMIN. But the architectural firm was here? Mr. WHITE. The architect had a local office; yes. It does create some difficulties, we have found. ADOPTION OF GAO RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. BENJAMIN. Well, I presume those difficulties can be inherent no matter whom you hire, but that doesn't deny the fact you are not advertising, and apparently the General Accounting Office feels that is the way it should be done. Since they are an evaluation arm of the Congress, I would suggest you might take some of the recommendations to heart, particularly with the overruns we are experiencing. Mr. WHITE. I agree, and we have taken them all to heart. As a matter of fact, we have changed a number of our procedures as a result of their recommendations. They did not, however, in that particular instance, Mr. Chairman, cite that as something which we ought to do. It was merely a statement of deviation because they were asked that question by the Senate Office Building Commission. GAO OVERSIGHT OF OTHER PROJECTS Mr. BENJAMIN. Was a GAO examination ever done on the James Madison Library Building? Mr. WHITE. No. Mr. BENJAMIN. Was there one ever done on the House Annex No. 2? Mr. WHITE. No, sir. Mr. BENJAMIN. Was there one ever done on the expansion of the Capitol Power Plant? Mr. WHITE. Not specifically. I should qualify that, Mr. Chairman. The General Accounting Office oversees our accounting and our books continuously and annually, but not specifically for those projects, as such. Mr. BENJAMIN. Not in terms of performing audits on those projects? Mr. WHITE. That is right. Mr. BENJAMIN. They are looking at your books to see if you account for receipts and that type of thing? Mr. WHITE. I am told they have site audit responsibilities, but they have not dug in, in the kind of investigative way that this one was done- Mr. BENJAMIN. Who precipitated the one on the Hart Building? Mr. WHITE. It was the Senate Office Building Commission. JAMES MADISON BUILDING COSTS Mr. BENJAMIN. Although we are waiting for figures, do you know what excess costs or waste may be involved in the James Madison Library Building, percentage-wise? 35-533 79 54 (Pt. 2) Mr. WHITE. I just can't say offhand, Mr. Chairman. But the figures will, of course, speak for themselves. Mr. BENJAMIN. What figures? Mr. WHITE. That I am going to supply for you, in terms of the percentage of additional work. Mr. BENJAMIN. That is exactly what it will speak to. It won't necessarily speak to waste. Mr. WHITE. I understand what you are saying. MADISON BUILDING INTERIOR GLASS Mr. BENJAMIN. What type of glass was to be installed in the interior of the Madison Building courtyard? Mr. WHITE. I am not sure I have the information available. The type of glass in the interior courtyard? Mr. BENJAMIN. Yes. Mr. WHITE. I believe there is a portion of it that is tempered glass, because it has two requirements: one to prevent people from easily falling through because it runs down to the floor in certain sections, as I recall. And, secondly, there is a fire-retardant necessity. Mr. BENJAMIN. Wasn't the architectural design for what we call 2-way glass? Mr. WHITE. I am not sure what you mean by 2-way glass. As opposed to being able to see through it one way? Yes, it is 2-way glass. Mr. BENJAMIN. Excuse me, it called for 1-way glass, didn't it? Mr. WHITE. I don't think so, but I could be mistaken. Mr. BENJAMIN. Is there a dispute now with regard to the type of glass installed? Mr. WHITE. I think there is a dispute with regard to the quality furnished. Mr. BENJAMIN. For the record, would you enumerate that dispute, and how you are resolving it? Mr. WHITE. Yes. [The information follows:] On the 1st and 2nd floors, the glass is double-paned with 1/4 inch bronze mirrored on the courtyard side, then 1/2 inch air space, then 1/4 inch heat strengthened bronze tinted on the office side. On the 3rd floor, the glass is triplepaned with 1/4 inch bronze mirrored on the courtyard side, then 1/2 inch air space, then 1/4 inch clear plate, then 1/2 inch air space, then 1/4 inch heat strengthened bronze tinted on the office side. This triple construction on the third floor is considered necessary because the third floor has controlled interior spaces that require special thermal treatment at the enclosure walls. The glass is furnished by the General Contractor in accordance with the specifications. The glass for the 1st and 2nd floors was manufactured by Environmental Glass Products Co. The glass for the 3rd floor was assembled by Thermoplex Manufacturing Inc. of Dallas, Texas. The submittals by the General Contractor were approved as submitted. Some of the glass for the 1st and 2nd floors is installed in a reverse manner, but this is now being corrected ment. The Government does not have a dispute at this point, and we are not aware of a specific dispute between the General Contractor and his suppliers. Therefore, there is no known cost difference at this time. PROMOTION OF CAPITOL POLICE Mr. BENJAMIN. In House Report 95-1254, accompanying the 1979 appropriation bill, the committee recommended that promotions to higher rank come from within the ranks of the force rather than from outside sources. Although this was published June 1, 1978, promotions from outside sources were continued on the House side after three such promotions were apparently initiated by the Senate Sergeant at Arms. Were these promotions all predicated on examination? Mr. WHITE. You are asking now a question involving the Capitol Police Board. Mr. BENJAMIN. I am asking you, as the Architect, a member of the Capitol Police Board. Mr. WHITE. Right. So far as I know, they were all done by examination. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the chairmanship of the Capitol Police Board alternates between the two Sergeants at Arms, and while I am aware of what is happening, they are probably in a better position to respond to some of the detail, but my recollection is that they were all done by examination, all the promotions. Mr. BENJAMIN. The Board has to make the promotions, right? Mr. WHITE. That is correct. Mr. BENJAMIN. And in making a promotion, don't you look at the examination scores? Mr. WHITE. I have never looked at the examination scores. Mr. WHITE. Yes; they are given in a summary fashion. The Chief of Police, who is the operating officer, presents those to the Board, and then the Board approves. Mr. BENJAMIN. It is a profile of the officer to be promoted, right? It tells you his qualifications and experience, an evaluation of his fitness for promotion? Mr. WHITE. I have seen those for the higher positions. I don't recall seeing those for the positions at the lower ranks of the officers. I recall seeing those for the upper ranks. POLICE BOARD EVALUATION Mr. BENJAMIN. Does the Board just rubberstamp whatever the Police Chief brings in? Mr. WHITE. I am not sure what that means. Mr. BENJAMIN. It means, do you actually do an evaluation before you make a determination on that Board? Mr. WHITE. I think we make an evaluation based upon the Chief's recommendations, but I don't think we make a separate evaluation. Mr. BENJAMIN. I am not quite sure what you mean now. Mr. WHITE. What I mean is, we accept the Chief's evaluations which are presented to us. We don't go beyond that. We are presuming the integrity of his information. That is what I mean Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you supply for the record whether there were examinations that preceded those promotions that I am speaking of? [The information follows:] The Police Chief has informed me that the three officers promoted to higher ranks and to which you specifically referred, did not take competitive examinations. However, it is my understanding that the officers were promoted to more properly compensate them in the positions they held at that time and currently hold. JUNE 1 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you advise us now as to whether you are aware of the recommendation of this subcommittee incorporated in its June 1 report? Mr. WHITE. I am aware of that. As a matter of fact, it was discussed at a Police Board meeting yesterday. Mr. BENJAMIN. And what was the result of that discussion? Mr. WHITE. My recollection is that the result of the discussion was that the percentage of people on the police force who are also members of the Metropolitan Police is extremely small, and that they are nevertheless in responsible positions, and that it would be detrimental to follow the recommendation of eliminating them altogether; at least, it was expressed that way by the Board after considerable discussion, namely, that the security interest of the Congress would be adversely affected by such action. That furthermore, since the examination method of determining the qualifications of an individual ought to govern, that no one was being adversely affected by the existence Mr. BENJAMIN. I think the key to what you are saying is, “ought to govern." Mr. WHITE. Exactly. Mr. BENJAMIN. Does it govern? Mr. WHITE. So far as we are able to tell. Again, I say maybe we should look further into the question rather than accept the integrity of what is presented to us, but on the basis of what is presented to us, it appears that way. I understand there is some dissatisfaction. Mr. BENJAMIN. I understand there is a lot of dissatisfaction. Mr. WHITE. Well, we are not able to detect a lot, but some. Mr. BENJAMIN. Let me just add to that, dissatisfaction is not necessarily limited to police ranks. There is a lot of dissatisfaction in the Congress, so my colleagues have advised me. Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. BENJAMIN. And I am doing to you what I hope you would do with the Police Chief. CAPITOL POLICE AS A PROFESSIONAL FORCE Mr. WHITE. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman; I certainly agree. We also discussed the question of whether the minor amount of remaining patronage on the House side was a detrimental condition, and no one seems to feel that it is. It has only been since 1971, as you may recall from the history of it, that efforts were made to turn the Capitol police into a professional force. |