Members of the House Appropriations Committee’s legislative branch panel voiced concerns on staffing, security and efficiency issues at a hearing on the House of Representatives budget Thursday.

For Chief Administrative Officer of the House Daniel Beard, improving the benefits package for employees is a particularly high priority.

“Thirty years ago we had a good benefits package,” Beard said. “Then it went into a sort of Rip Van Winkle sleep.”

Beard noted that House employees don’t have short- or long-term disability, or elder care, and there is little tuition reimbursement.

“The benefits package is reflected in our retention rates,” Beard said, adding that most entry-level employees stay for about 18 months. “We have to find a way to develop a better benefits package in the House.”

Beard also said paying employees twice a month, instead of once a month, would “save money in the long run.” But the law requires that checks be distributed once a month: “My hands are tied because of the law.”

Lawmakers also raised concerns about the size of their offices.

Beard said that House employees are working in 38 percent of the recommended space required for federal employees.

While the number of staff members has increased, Congress has not amended its three-suites policy in more than 30 years.

Modular furniture could help, he said, but “if we go along with the modular furniture path we’re on now, we’ll be done in 2018” and have to start again.

Energy efficiency was also a focus for the CAO’s office. Beard said the question now is whether members want the House buildings to become carbon-neutral.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) said she has already taken steps to make her office more energy efficient. “I’m already purchasing better light bulbs for my office. It’s pretty easy to do unless we’re sitting on the world’s largest inventory of light bulbs.”

Beard concurred: “We should be buying only florescent light bulbs.”

Lawmakers questioned Beard and House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood on the mail security system, which requires that every piece of mail be opened and inspected before it arrives at the Capitol complex.

McCollum and Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) responded that members already are bypassing the current security system by telling people to send mail to district offices, or to an aide’s house.

“We’re already going around the security system we have in place,” McCollum said. “We find ourselves telling people to ‘send it to the district.’”

Livingood said there is a location on the Senate side where members can have mail delivered and inspected quickly. He conceded that the current process can be a headache.

“It is a hassle,” Livingood said. “But it’s a hassle well worth the effort. Consequences could be dire if we don’t do it.”

Panel Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) expressed interest in “tightening” the current system and “making the system more convenient and less inconvenient for constituents.”

Ranking member Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) put it succinctly: “I would say we need to be green, smart and state-of-the-art in terms of way we operate the legislative branch.”

Wasserman Schultz took a moment to criticize the Architect of the Capitol (AoC) when she questioned Beard on the management structure on the Hill.

“Isn’t it odd that the House is not responsible for the House office buildings?” Wasserman Schultz said. “Has there been any discussion of moving the responsibility to the House?”

Beard said that the Architect is the facilities manager and defended the AoC by saying the office has a difficult job with 435 bosses.

Wasserman Schultz pressed the issue: “Is it the most efficient and effective way of managing the House?”

“No,” Beard said, citing politics and the history of the complex as reasons for the management structure.

Wasserman Schultz retorted: “Is that a nice way of saying that’s the way it’s always been done?”

“Yes,” Beard continued. “I’m trying to be diplomatic.”