U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

33–929 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–245 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2771/S. 1686 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

Architect of the Capitol (except House items) 

Congressional Budget Office 

Government Accountability Office 

Government Printing Office 

Library of Congress 

Office of Compliance 

United States Capitol Police 

U.S. Senate 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHARLES KIEFFER, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

(ex officio) 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

(ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

NANCY OLKEWICZ

CAROLYN E. APOSTOLOU (Minority) 

SARAH WILSON (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

TERI CURTIN
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FRIDAY MARCH 2, 2007 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 1 

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2007 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 27 

Government Printing Office .................................................................................... 43 

Congressional Budget Office ................................................................................... 49 

Office of Compliance ................................................................................................ 52 

FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2007 

U.S. Senate: Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper ................................................... 79 

United States Capitol Police ................................................................................... 105 

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007 

U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary ....................................................................... 129 

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 203 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 

FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu and Allard. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN AYERS, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Good morning. Thank you all for attending 

this morning’s hearing. I’m pleased to be chairing my first Legislative Branch Subcommittee meeting and happy to have the good 

support of the staff behind me to prepare for the meeting and to, 

hopefully, get us off on the right foot. 

I look forward to working with Senator Allard, who will be here 

in just a minute. As you all know, we had two votes this morning, 

which is why the meeting had to be delayed. 

We meet today to take testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budget 

request for the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). I want to welcome 

Stephen Ayers, Acting Architect of the Capitol. 

Mr. AYERS. Good morning. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you for the great tour that you provided for me, my staff and members of my family last week at the 

new visitor center, which is still under construction. As we all 

know, there are many decisions still pending on this project but it 

is really a magnificent space. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER TOUR

I appreciate your commitment to this organization and wish you 

good luck in this endeavor, as the members of the selection commission search for a candidate to serve as the next Architect of the 

Capitol. 

I want to start again by also thanking Tom Fontana and Shalley 

Kim of your staff for joining us on that tour. It was my first time 

down to the visitor center and I must say, I was more than impressed. I had heard a lot of wonderful things about the project and 
2 

some critical things, of course, but I for one was not prepared for 

the grandeur and magnificence of the center. I think it will be an 

excellent addition to this historical Capitol Building, a symbol of 

democracy and an expression of the importance that we put on the 

work of the people, which is what this Capitol is about, not just for 

those of us that work here every day, but this Capitol expresses 

both in its architecture and in the work that goes on in this Capitol 

and its surrounding buildings, the great aspirations of the greatest 

democracy in the world. 

I’m looking forward to sharing this building with my other colleagues. I have no doubt that once this facility opens, it will be a 

tremendous source of pride to all who visit here and will increase 

the numbers of people who visit here and more importantly than 

the numbers, the quality of the visits of the people, both adults and 

children, who tromp through this Capitol regularly in all 12 

months. 

BUDGET INCREASES AND PROJECT DELAYS

The Architect’s budget request is $482 million, an increase of $82 

million or 20 percent. There are a number of rather large items in 

your request, such as an additional $20 million for the visitor center, $25 million for repairs of the utility tunnels, and $87 million 

for various repairs to the Senate Office Building. 

When you testified last month, you announced that the schedule 

had slipped again so I hope you will let this subcommittee know 

how this might affect, either positively or negatively, your budget 

submission. 

Finally, before you begin your statement, I want to thank your 

entire staff for their hard work in maintaining the Capitol complex 

on a daily basis. It’s a job larger than most people understand and 

I particularly want to thank Marvin Simpson of your staff for the 

assistance he has provided to me over many years since I came to 

Capitol Hill. He and the others on your staff are true professionals 

and I really appreciate their help. 

When Senator Allard gets here, I will ask him for his opening 

statement but why don’t you go ahead and proceed, Stephen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF STEPHEN AYERS

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Madame Chairman and thank you for 

this opportunity to testify today regarding our fiscal year 2008 

budget request. 

Since 1793, the AOC has been responsible for construction, maintenance, and preservation of the Capitol Building and the growing 

and evolving Capitol complex. The AOC has evolved as well. We 

have become more strategic in our thinking, more transparent in 

our processes, and more accountable to our clients. 

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

As you know, I recently assumed the duties of Acting Architect 

of the Capitol following the retirement of Alan Hantman. I’ve been 

working closely with the AOC team to ensure a smooth transition 

over the past few months. We have a new senior leadership team 

in place, made up of experienced, senior-level managers. We also 
3 

have a number of new tools at our disposal to help set goals, manage projects, and plan for the long-term needs of the Capitol complex. 

Our most important tool is our strategic plan. In January, we 

launched our strategic plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2011, a 

performance-based plan, which will help us continually enhance 

the effectiveness in carrying out our mission. 

As a result of these tools, we’ve had a number of successes in recent years. For example, we recently closed out 67 percent of the 

Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) general management 

recommendations. We’ve improved our cost accounting procedures 

and internal controls and we received our third annual clean financial audit opinion from an independent auditing firm. 

Last year, we reduced energy consumption by nearly 6 percent 

over the 2003 baseline, representing a 3.8-percent increase over our 

goal. Most importantly, we’ve improved our delivery of services to 

our clients, as demonstrated by our annual building services customer satisfaction survey. Since our 2002 baseline survey was conducted, we’ve steadily received high marks from our clients in 

areas such as maintenance, services provided by our AOC shops, 

and overall responsiveness. 

ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST

Madam Chairman, we’ve developed this budget through a deliberate planning process. We’ve reviewed many operating and capital 

project requests and made some difficult choices in our effort to be 

good stewards of the Capitol complex and to practice fiscal responsibility. 

Our 2008 annual operating budget request for $341 million is in 

support of our ongoing efforts to be more strategic and accountable, 

as well as other necessary support programs including implementation of an emergency preparedness program, purchasing utilities, 

procuring, operating and maintaining relevant information technology systems to support them, continuing to provide advanced 

training opportunities for our employees, and anticipating the operating costs of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). 

The second component of our budget for fiscal year 2008 is $131 

million for capital projects. Chief among our responsibilities is 

maintaining, preserving, and upgrading the national treasures entrusted to our care. These include the facilities, grounds, artwork, 

and other assets, determining which work is done first and where 

our limited resources are best used involves a deliberate and 

multiyear planning approach. 

A vital tool we rely on during this process is our facility condition 

assessments. They help us prioritize our projects based on an objective set of criteria that allow us to evaluate the relative merits of 

each of these projects. Once a condition assessment is complete, 

this information is rolled into a 5-year capital improvement plan. 

This plan is used to evaluate projects based on a set of pre-established criteria, including fire and life safety, code compliance, historic preservation, economics, life cycle cost considerations, physical 

security, and energy efficiency. 
4 

These projects are further evaluated based on the condition of 

the facilities and their components and the urgency in correcting 

the identified deficiencies. 

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN

Looking further down the road, we’re also developing a Capitol 

complex master plan, which requires executing necessary deferred 

maintenance and renewal work to keep existing facilities functioning while planning for major building renewals in the future. 

The master plan and individual jurisdiction plans seek to address 

these growing problems through a flexible investment strategy incorporating re-investment and new construction. 

Key capital projects in our 2008 request include utility tunnel repairs, a Dirksen infrastructure project, and smoke detector upgrades in the John Adams Building. In addition to these new capital projects, we are committed to completing some long-term 

projects, specifically the Capitol Visitor Center and the utility tunnel repairs. 

Madam Chairman, we appreciate the interest you’ve taken in the 

CVC project and we appreciate your participation on the tour we 

conducted last week. Our 2008 request includes $20 million for the 

CVC to cover potential sequence 2 to delay costs, CVC administration costs, construction management fees, and potential change 

order funding. The latest billing statements show that we are now 

91 percent complete and major construction activities will begin to 

wind down in the next few months. The tasks left to do largely involve aesthetics and functionality of the space. 

SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS

Although we are continuing to make progress, the contractor continues to miss milestones developed by the contractor to prioritize 

the work needing to be done. The fact that a significant number 

of milestones were missed, in my mind, indicates that the overall 

schedule is not realistic, given the risks and uncertainties associated with the integration of fire and security systems and the 

building systems in general. The project team has been working aggressively to mitigate risks but it would be prudent to factor these 

risks and contingencies into the schedule. 

Specifically, these risks include commissioning of building systems and the overall acceptance and testing of the fire and life 

safety systems. After carefully evaluating past contractor performance schedules and the nature of the issues that remain, I have directed the project team to evaluate these potential risks into the 

current schedule to determine an adjusted completion date, since 

these risks are not in the current schedule. 

When we finish that assessment, we will notify the subcommittee 

as to our conclusions and recommendations. At this time, due to 

these outstanding factors, in my opinion, a certificate of occupancy 

for the Capitol Visitor Center will likely occur in the spring of 

2008. 
5 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER OPERATIONS

Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to briefly update 

you and the subcommittee on the CVC construction progress made 

over the last few months. Finishes are now being put in place in 

both the visitor center and House and Senate expansion spaces. In 

the great hall, all of the floor and wall stone is complete. Masons 

are finishing their last remaining stonework on the water features 

at the base of the two grand staircases. In the two orientation theatres, carpet and chair installation is complete. Workers are now 

completing the detailing on the millwork and fabric wall panels. 

EXHIBITION HALL

Work continues in the exhibition hall as workers continue to install glass floor panels around the wall of aspirations. All four escalator units have been set in place in the east front transition zone. 

With the escalators now in place, masons have resumed floor stone 

installation in the upper level lobby. 

EAST FRONT ROTUNDA LEVEL

At the Rotunda level of the east front, in the past week, the contractor has tasked five crews with setting sandstone blocks to the 

interior walls. These teams are now setting 80 stones per day, exceeding our daily goal of 70 stones per day on the east front. 

Outside, all of the stone is complete along the curving walls, 

along the main entrance ramps and the foundations for light poles 

are now being installed. As the weather gets warmer, landscaping 

activities will begin in earnest, to include the planting of 53 new 

trees. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER MANAGEMENT TEAM

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, the AOC has a rich history 

since the cornerstone of the Capitol was laid in 1793. We have become more strategic, transparent, and accountable. We’ve developed our 2008 budget request through a deliberate planning process. We’ve reviewed our priority list and made some difficult 

choices to be good stewards. We’ve accomplished much and experienced numerous successes in the last year, and these achievements 

are directly attributed to the dedicated, professional individuals 

that make up the AOC team. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In my role as Acting Architect, I’m honored and privileged to 

work along side them. Because of their efforts and commitment to 

excellence, we will continue to provide exceptional service to the 

Congress and the visiting public. We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s support and will continually work to achieve our goals 

to transform the agency to be more strategic and accountable. 

That concludes my statement. I’m happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 
6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN T. AYERS

Madam Chairman, Senator Allard, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for this opportunity to testify today regarding the fiscal year 2008 budget request 

for the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). 

Since 1793, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol has been responsible for the 

construction, maintenance, and preservation of the Capitol Building and the growing and evolving Capitol complex. The AOC has grown and evolved as well, particularly over the past several years. We have become more strategic in our thinking, 

more transparent in our processes, and more accountable to our clients. 

As you know, I recently assumed the duties of Acting Architect of the Capitol following the retirement of Alan Hantman on February 4. I have been working closely 

with Mr. Hantman and the rest of the AOC team to ensure a smooth transition over 

the past few months. 

In addition to my taking on the role of Acting Architect, we have a new senior 

leadership team in place made up of experienced, senior-level managers with diverse 

skill sets, including the Chief Administrative Officer; Chief Financial Officer; Director of Congressional and External Relations; the Director of Planning and Project 

Management; and several others. They have brought new ideas and practices to the 

table and are committed to the continued transformation of the agency. In addition 

to these new ideas, we have a number of new tools at our disposal to use to help 

set goals, manage projects, and plan for the long-term needs of the Capitol complex 

and our clients. 

Our first and most important tool is our Strategic and Performance Plan. In 2003, 

we implemented our first Strategic Plan to become more strategic, transparent, and 

accountable. It was the blueprint we used in our efforts to deliver exceptional services to Congress and the visiting public. Throughout 2006, as one of my responsibilities as chief operating officer, our team worked to revise our Strategic Plan to reflect our priorities and goals for the next 5 years. In January, we launched our second, updated Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2007–2011—a performance-based plan— 

which will help us to continually enhance our effectiveness in carrying out our mission. By setting goals, objectives, and measurable milestones we can better focus our 

efforts, set priorities, allocate resources, and facilitate decisionmaking throughout 

our organization. 

As a result of these new tools and processes, we have achieved a number of successes over the past year. For example, we recently closed out 67 percent of the Government Accountability Office’s general management recommendations and we are 

on our way to closing out others over the next few months. We have improved our 

cost accounting procedures and internal controls and have seen our efforts pay off 

when we recently received our third-consecutive clean financial audit opinion from 

independent auditors. Last winter, we increased our efforts to improve energy efficiency Capitol Hill-wide. Following the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

and thanks to the continued cooperation of congressional offices and hard work of 

AOC staff, last year we reduced energy consumption by nearly 6 percent over the 

2003 baseline, exceeding the fiscal year 2006 goal by 3.8 percent. 

Internally, we have been working to foster a results-oriented workplace and encourage communication and teamwork throughout the agency. This involves holding 

regular staff or shop meetings, conducting annual town hall meetings with all AOC 

employees to encourage open dialogues and feedback, and providing a variety of 

training opportunities. These efforts have also borne fruit, for example, our injury 

and illness rate decreased for the sixth year in a row. We dropped to 4.88 cases per 

100 employees in fiscal year 2006 from a high of 17.9 in fiscal year 2000. 

To establish greater accountability throughout the organization, we created a 

‘‘dashboard’’ that summarizes AOC’s performance. It contains a series of tactical or 

operational indicators that are tracked on a monthly basis and are for use by the 

chief operating officer and architect as well as superintendents and division heads 

to monitor the AOC’s performance in several key areas. The dashboard also includes 

performance measures for each strategic goal area. 

In addition, 2 years ago we re-organized and established the Planning and Project 

Management Division to align project management staff and resources with our 

mission-critical goals and to consolidate project and construction management functions. This created a single point of responsibility for every project and provides 

‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ oversight. We implemented new processes designed to improve 

project tracking and reporting, including developing written procedures and manuals to follow throughout every step of the design, engineering, and construction 

stages of a project. We have modeled our work on industry’s best practices and have 

joined a variety of professional organizations to keep up to date on the latest information and practices. Today, our design and construction teams interact daily by 
7 

holding a variety of briefings and meetings to share experiences and increase communication to ensure that projects are done well, are done on time, and done within 

budget. 

Most importantly, we have improved our delivery of services to our clients as 

demonstrated by our annual Building Services Customer Satisfaction surveys. Since 

our baseline survey was conducted in 2002, we have steadily received high marks 

from our clients on areas such as maintenance, services provided by AOC shops, and 

overall responsiveness to their needs. 

We have developed this budget through a deliberate planning process. We reviewed many operating and capital project requests and made some difficult choices 

in our efforts to be good stewards of the Capitol complex and practice fiscal responsibility. 

The AOC’s total budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $481.7 million ($431 million 

without items specific to the House). A good portion of the fiscal year 2008 increase 

is the result of using fiscal year 2006 levels as the baseline in this budget request. 

For example, 2 years worth of pay raises for our employees are included, as well 

as 2 years of inflation on the other goods and services we procure. In addition, most 

of the increase in utilities is the result of using the fiscal year 2006 appropriation 

value for the Capitol Power Plant, before the impact of the 2006 reprogramming and 

the adjustment made by the House and Senate appropriators in our fiscal year 2007 

continuing resolution levels. 

Annual Operating Budget Request 

Our fiscal year 2008 annual operating budget request for $341.6 million is to support our on-going efforts to be a strategic and accountable organization as well as 

support other necessary programs including the implementation of a new emergency 

preparedness program; purchasing utilities; procuring, operating, and maintaining 

relevant information technologies and the systems to support them; continuing to 

provide advanced training opportunities for employees, and anticipating operating 

costs of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) until the governance issue is determined. 

Specifically, the annual operating request would provide funding for minimal 

operational start-up costs, exhibits, gift shops, telecommunications, and information 

technology infrastructure support. It also covers the increased payroll costs resulting 

from the opening of the CVC and the need to hire additional full-time staff to support operations and maintenance functions. 

This request also would provide funding for the purchasing of supplies required 

for installation, conservation, and maintenance of the exhibits, rotation and preparation of documents, and conservation and artifact insurance required for those exhibits on loan to the CVC. 

We are also looking to increase our investment in information technology (IT) in 

fiscal year 2008 to re-establish base resources that have been reallocated to cover 

other budget shortfalls in past years. With today’s ever-changing technologies, we 

are looking to protect our IT systems by installing the latest technology security programs, prepare for future technological needs, and install automated systems to include the Financial Management System, Human Resources Management System, 

and Computer-Aided Facility Management System. 

Capital Project Budget Request 

The second component of our fiscal year 2008 budget request is $131.1 million for 

capital projects. Chief among our responsibilities is maintaining, preserving, and upgrading the national treasures entrusted to our care by Congress. This includes the 

facilities, grounds, art work, and other assets. Determining which work is done first 

and where our limited resources are best used involves a deliberate approach and 

multi-year project planning. 

A vital tool that we rely on during this process is our Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs). An independent contractor, using common industry standards, has 

been conducting FCAs throughout the Capitol complex since 2004. The FCAs help 

us to prioritize our projects based on a set of objective criteria that allow us to 

evaluate the relative merits of each of these projects. FCAs provide us with a method for measuring the current condition of all facilities in a uniform way to assess 

how much work is necessary to maintain or upgrade their conditions to acceptable 

levels to support organizational missions and help to determine when this work 

should occur. 

It is important to try to meet the infrastructure needs for these facilities within 

appropriate timeframes in order to prevent their conditions from deteriorating further, resulting in the costs to correct these deficiencies to rise. Therefore, it is key 

to look at a multi-year, fiscally-responsible, holistic plan to attend to these issues. 

Once an FCA is completed on all the facilities, this information is rolled into a 5- 
8 

year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is used to evaluate projects based 

on a set of pre-established criteria. These criteria include whether the work addresses fire and life-safety issues; code compliance; preservation of historic or legacy elements; economics and life cycle cost considerations, physical security and other considerations, such as environmental and energy efficiency. The projects are further 

evaluated based on the conditions of the facilities and their components, and the urgency in correcting the deficiencies. 

Looking even farther down the road, we are also developing the Capitol Complex 

Master Plan (CCMP) which requires executing necessary deferred maintenance and 

renewal work to keep existing facilities functioning while planning for major renewal projects. The CCMP and individual Jurisdiction Plans seek to address these 

growing problems through a flexible investment strategy incorporating reinvestment 

and new construction. Each Jurisdiction Plan is being evaluated to ensure sequencing of short- and long-term priority work is properly expedited and aligned to ensure 

successful execution and avoid duplication of efforts. Ultimately, the CCMP will establish a framework that will help the AOC to prioritize the maintenance, renovation, and construction of facilities over the next 5, 10, and 20 years while allowing 

for prudent budgeting of the costs for necessary upkeep and construction. 

Using the CIP process, we are able to comparatively vet the projects to ensure 

that the most urgent get addressed most quickly. Setting these priorities and setting 

limits resulted in some projects not rising to the top of the list based on the objective criteria used as part of the CIP process. It is not that these projects are not 

important. They are all needed and are mission critical, but the fiscally responsible 

thing to do is address the urgent needs first. This multi-step methodology was used 

to produce the project priority list included in our fiscal year 2008 budget request 

submitted for the subcommittee’s consideration. 

As in previous budgets, our focus is on ensuring that fire and life-safety deficiencies are corrected and that significant resources are devoted to protecting the 

people who work and visit the Capitol complex. Safety is one of the AOC’s top priorities. 

Key capital projects included in the AOC’s fiscal year 2008 budget request are: 

—utility tunnel repairs and improvements ($24.8 million). The multi-year project 

addresses safety issues in the utility tunnels and improves conditions relating 

to egress, ventilation, communications, and asbestos. 

—Infrastructure improvements in the Dirksen Senate Office Building ($8 million). 

Second phase of a three-phase project to replace aged and deteriorated air handling units to maintain ventilation and occupant comfort. 

—Emergency lighting upgrades ($4.4 million). Correct emergency lighting deficiencies in the Rayburn House Office Building by modernizing existing systems. 

—Smoke detector upgrades ($6.5 million). Upgrade the LOC’s John Adams Building to current code requirements for smoke detection systems. 

In addition to these new capital projects, we are committed to completing some 

long-term projects, specifically the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) and repairing the 

utility tunnels. 

Capitol Visitor Center Budget Request and Project Update 

Our fiscal year 2008 budget request for the CVC includes $20 million to cover potential Sequence 2 delay costs, CVC administration costs, construction management 

fees, and potential additional change orders. 

The latest billing statements and schedule show that the project is 91 percent 

complete. Major construction activities will begin to wind down over the next few 

months. The tasks now left to do largely involve the aesthetics and functionality of 

the space such as painting and installation of carpet, lighting fixtures, hand railings, decorative woodwork, as well as the tie-in of building systems. 

Although we are continuing to make progress, the contractor continues to miss 

scheduled activities or ‘‘milestones’’—interim target dates from the schedule developed by the contractor to prioritize work needing to be done to complete the project. 

The fact that a significant number of milestones were missed, in my mind, serves 

as an indicator that the overall schedule is not realistic given the risks and uncertainty associated with the integration of the fire and security systems and the building systems. The project team has been working aggressively to mitigate several 

risks, but it would be prudent to factor these risks and contingencies into the schedule. Specifically, they are (1) commissioning of building systems, and (2) acceptance 

testing of fire, security, and life-safety systems to include testing to ensure the 

building systems and fire and life-safety systems are integrated and work together 

properly. 

After carefully evaluating past contractor performance, schedules, and the nature 

of issues that remain, I directed the project team to evaluate the potential risks to 
9 

the current schedule to determine an adjusted completion date since the two risks 

I discussed were not built into the current schedule or into the fire and life-safety 

acceptance testing plan. When we finish this assessment, we will notify the subcommittee as to our conclusions and our recommendations. At this time, due to the 

outstanding factors we are dealing with, in my opinion the certificate of occupancy 

will likely occur in spring 2008. 

Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to briefly update the subcommittee 

on the construction progress that we have made over the past few months on the 

CVC. 

Work is ongoing to put the finishes in place in both the Visitor Center and House 

and Senate expansion spaces. In the Great Hall, all of the floor and wall stone is 

complete. Masons are finishing the last remaining stonework in the water fountains 

at the base of the staircases. 

In the two orientation theaters, carpet and chair installation is complete. Workers 

are completing the detailing on the millwork and fabric wall panels. Many of the 

wall lighting and speaker elements have been installed and crews are now putting 

in the bronze railings. Work continues in the Exhibition Hall as workers continue 

to install glass floor panels around the Wall of Aspirations. 

In the East Front transition zone, all four escalator units have been set into place 

alongside the central stair connecting the CVC to the Capitol. The escalators had 

occupied floor space in the upper level lobby between the two orientation theaters. 

With this space now clear, masons have resumed floor stone installation at this location and will soon complete this last remaining major block of floor space in the 

CVC. 

At the Rotunda level of the East Front, in the past week, the contractor has 

tasked five crews with setting the sandstone blocks to the interior walls. The teams 

are setting approximately 80 stones per day, exceeding the daily goal of setting 70 

stones in the East Front. 

Outside, almost all of the stone is complete along the curving walls along the 

main entrance ramps and the foundations for light poles are being installed. As the 

weather gets warmer, landscaping activities will begin in earnest, including the 

planting of 53 new trees. 

Madam Chairman, the Office of the Architect has had a rich history since the cornerstone of the Capitol was laid in 1793. Over the years, the AOC has grown and 

evolved much like the complex which we maintain and preserve. As I noted previously, we have become more strategic in our thinking, more transparent in our 

processes, and more accountable to our clients. 

We have developed our fiscal year 2008 budget request through a deliberate planning process. We reviewed our priority list and made some difficult choices in our 

efforts to be good stewards of the Capitol complex and practice fiscal responsibility. 

Using tools we developed based on industry’s best practices, we have determined 

which projects are done first and where our resources are best used. 

As I discussed earlier, as a result of putting plans into place, creating new and 

innovative tools and processes, and setting priorities, we have accomplished much 

and experienced numerous successes. These achievements can be directly attributed 

to the dedicated, professional individuals that make up the AOC team. In my role 

as Acting Architect, I am honored and privileged to work along side them. Because 

of their efforts and commitment to excellence, we continue to provide exceptional 

service to Congress and the visiting public. 

We greatly appreciate this subcommittee’s support as we continually work to 

achieve our goals and transform our Agency into a results-oriented workplace. 

Madam Chairman, once again, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I’d 

be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you for that excellent although brief 

statement. Can you be as specific as possible about any additional 

funding that your office may need in 2007 or 2008, based on the 

completion estimates of the visitor center? Have you submitted that 

in your testimony this morning any additional funding that might 

be necessary? 

Mr. AYERS. We don’t believe that additional funding is necessary 

in 2007. I think the continuing resolution, the way it was structured, gave us the necessary flexibility to carry us through 2007. 
10 

In addition, we’ve requested $20 million in our 2008 request. We 

believe that’s sufficient to carry us through 2008. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER GOVERNANCE

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. I understand that Bob Hixon, the 

Project Executive, is planning to retire at the end of the month. Do 

you have plans to provide comparable leadership at this critical 

stage or could you talk for a moment about that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. Mr. Hixon is retiring. We do continue to 

twist his arm but he is holding steady at the moment. We developed a transition plan several months ago and we’ll be moving 

Doug Jacobs, our current Project Design Manager, into the Project 

Executive role. Doug has been on the project for nearly 7 years and 

is well respected throughout the Congress and is well versed in the 

in’s and out’s of the project. We’re comfortable and confident that 

his leadership skills will bring it to conclusion. 

FIRE ALARMS AND HVAC SYSTEMS

Senator LANDRIEU. I understand that GAO has expressed concerns about the fire alarms and heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems and I understand there will be several months of 

actually testing these systems, which is contributing to the extension of the opening. And you mentioned it briefly in your opening 

statement but could you add a few thoughts about where we are 

in terms of the progress we are making on this particular aspect 

of the building? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. We believe most of the delay for the fire 

alarm systems are behind us now, with essentially all of our submittals for the fire alarm system approved or in the approval process. So work is ongoing on the installation of the fire alarm system 

in earnest. It has contributed to significant delay thus far. There 

is risk that remains as, once it’s installed, we have to pretest it and 

then go through an extensive acceptance testing process to ensure 

it works as it is designed. There is risk remaining in that and we’re 

working now to accommodate that risk in the construction schedule. 

FIRE ALARMS SYSTEM DIFFERENTIATION

Senator LANDRIEU. For the lay people among us, can you explain 

the difference between the fire alarm system in the visitor center 

and the current fire alarm system in the Capitol Building itself? 

Are we trying to have the same system or is this one far superior 

to what is in the current building? 

Mr. AYERS. This system is far more superior and more sophisticated than the current system in the Capitol Building, absolutely, 

because the CVC is a below-ground, assembly facility. It involves 

a significant matrix that includes the control of doors and operating equipment and various other security features are all tied 

into the fire alarm system that makes it a little more unique than 

the system we currently have in the Capitol Building. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And there will be ways, as we’re testing this, 

to make sure that at the end, it will actually work? So you can see, 

stage by stage, if something needs to be fixed? Because I’ve seen 
11 

these design systems in other aspects of our Government and the 

theory of the design is terrific but when you get down to actually 

making it work, you end up producing something that actually fails 

to work appropriately. We would not want that to happen in this 

center. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am, you’re absolutely right. The critical 

phase of that is the final acceptance testing of all of these fire 

alarm systems. That is where it is put through its paces and all 

of these individual systems are tested together in that final stage, 

to be sure that it does work. We expect that process to take at least 

6 months, so it’s a very extensive testing program to validate that 

it works as designed. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TUNNEL

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. So while we’re anxious to get things 

done, we don’t want to short circuit this testing period, which I 

think is important for the complexity of the system. The Library 

of Congress—the status of the work on the Library of Congress 

tunnel and the associated connection of the Jefferson Building— 

have delays been encountered? If so, why and what steps have 

been taken to ensure the cost of all the work will not exceed the 

statutory $10 million limit? 

Mr. AYERS. We’re comfortable with that at the moment. We believe we’ll be $200,000 or $300,000 below that requirement. I think 

the work is now 65 or 68 percent complete, so the unforeseen site 

conditions are out of the way. We have a clear understanding of the 

work that remains and that work is behind schedule by a number 

of months. We do believe it will be finished in the May or early 

June timeframe. We’re watching that very closely. You may have 

heard us talk about our action plan. The work that is going on in 

the tunnel as well as the space in the Jefferson Building are all 

part of the action plan. We look at that schedule very carefully in 

a separate schedule meeting on that particular piece of the work 

alone so we understand that there is some risk there, but we’re 

steadily focused on it and we’re comfortable that we’ll be able to 

complete it under the $10 million cap. 

VISITOR TRAFFIC FLOW

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, one of the exciting things about the expansion, when I made the tour, was thinking about the improvement in the quality of the tour for our visitors and our citizens. To 

be able to move freely between the Capitol and the Library of Congress, which I think is one of the most beautiful buildings in the 

whole complex and actually under visited because there is no system for visitors to access it easily. So I’m very excited about this. 

And, I think the way that you indicated how people will flow from 

one part of the Capitol, through the visitor center, and to the Library of Congress, I think it will help encourage visitors to the Library of Congress. Not that it does not have a very high profile 

among visitors generally, but this will really raise its profile, because it’s truly an extraordinary building on its own. 
12 

FORT MEADE LOGISTICS CENTER

The Library of Congress is requesting $44 million in the 2008 

budget for a logistics center at Fort Meade. I understand that that 

is not included in your priority of requests at this time. Could you 

comment about that? In your view, it is a high, medium, or low priority and what are your views about the needs for additional storage? 

Mr. AYERS. I am very familiar with that project, as I was previously the superintendent for the Library buildings and grounds, 

so I was intimately involved in its development. There is no question it is an important project, one that the Library of Congress 

thinks is an immediate need. From our perspective, when it shook 

out in the overall priorities, throughout the Capitol complex, it did 

not make what we thought was a reasonable budget request. 

CAPITOL POLICE CONSTRUCTION REQUEST

Senator LANDRIEU. I’m looking forward to hearing a bit more 

from the Capitol Police about this and I understand that you have 

to prioritize and make those decisions. Do you support the Capitol 

Police request for construction that is included in this budget? 

Could you comment about the Capitol Police construction request? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. We have a couple of initiatives on the 

capital side for the Capitol Police. One is the vehicle barriers on 

Independence Avenue. They have expressed that that’s an important matter and we do have that in our budget. In addition, we 

have our standard Capitol buildings and grounds request, including 

a minor construction component that we believe will meet the 

needs of the Capitol Police. We do work and partner with them 

very closely in our budget development. 

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN REVIEW PROCESS

Senator LANDRIEU. Who approves the Architect’s master plan 

and could you review, from your perspective, the role of this subcommittee and the Senate Rules Committee, relative to your master planning process? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. We believe ultimately that the Capitol 

complex master plan should be approved by the leadership of the 

Congress. Certainly this subcommittee and the Rules Committee 

need to play an integral part in the development of that plan but 

from our perspective, the plan will be much more significant once 

it is finally approved by the leadership of the Congress. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I have been joined by Senator Allard, who 

served as chair of this committee for many years. So I would like 

to turn to him right now and I will come back to my questions. I’ll 

ask Senator Allard if he has an opening statement and I thank you 

for your leadership and your guidance through the expansion of— 

one of the largest expansions of the Capitol in the Capitol’s history, 

if not the largest. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you, Senator Landrieu and I look 

forward to working with you over the next couple years. We’re 
13 

going to continue to have some challenges, I can see that already 

and I think you’ll be a very able chairperson. 

Also, before we make an opening statement, I would like to recognize Bob Hixon. You know, Bob Hixon has graciously been showing up at my hearings for 2 years. We’ve kept him busy. He has 

testified many times before this subcommittee and it’s my understanding that this could be his last Senate subcommittee hearing. 

I hear a sigh of relief when I mention that. 

I understand Bob is retiring March 31 and so I wanted to recognize him in a public way. He has been a driving force on the CVC 

project. As Project Executive, he has tackled many of the challenges in making it a reality. Bob has regularly juggled thousands 

of tasks associated with the project and he’s done it very well and 

he has provided exceptional service, I think, to the Architect of the 

Capitol and to the Congress. He’s had a long, successful Government career with the majority of his career spent at the General 

Services Administration, where he served for several years as Director for the Center for Construction Project Management. So we 

appreciate Bob’s commitment to the CVC project and his leadership. He’s been a consummate professional, in my view, through 

his service. So thank you, Bob. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Bob, why don’t you stand up and we’ll give 

you a round of applause? 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman and congratulations again on your chairmanship for this subcommittee. 

Some members of our committee view this as the least desirable 

post but I believe it is one of the most important, frankly and I 

think we need to take care of our backyard. You and I have that 

responsibility, ensuring that the legislative branch is positioned, 

through adequate funding, to fulfill its constitutional duties. I 

think it is very critical and I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. Ayers, it’s good to see you here. This is your first hearing before this subcommittee as the Acting Architect. You’re wearing two 

hats, I understand, right now and I don’t know how you keep up 

with that kind of a schedule because those two positions are demanding. 

Last year, you came before us as the Acting Chief Operating Officer. You’ve held many positions at AOC just within the past several years. Superintendent of the Library buildings and grounds, 

Deputy Superintendent of the Senate office buildings, before becoming the Chief Operating Officer. I believe you’ve done a good job 

and I wish you the best as the Acting Architect. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, sir. 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMPLIANCE

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chairman, one of the initiatives I pursued as chairman of this subcommittee was to bring the legislative 

branch into compliance with the spirit and intent of the Government Performance and Result Act. This act encourages greater effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability in the Federal Government. It requires agencies to set goals and use meaningful measures for management and budgeting. While the legislative branch 

is not statutorily required to do so, we require that of all other 

branches outside the legislative branch. I believe the legislative 
14 

branch should be held to the same standards. We shouldn’t have 

two sets of standards. I feel strongly about that so you can expect 

me to bring up how it is that we’re managing and are we setting 

goals and objectives and are we meeting those, to be held accountable for our actions. 

And I will lend my support to programs that have proven to be 

effective by meeting or exceeding those performance goals. 

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

I was pleased to see in your written testimony, Mr. Ayers, the 

discussion about the importance of setting goals, objectives, and 

measurable milestones and the need to establish greater accountability within the agency. There is more work that needs to be done 

in this area. The AOC has made progress over the past several 

years in using performance measures and developing budgets 

based on objective criteria, particularly through the capital improvement plan. 

Finally, I’d like to thank the AOC and GAO for providing the 

Lessons Learned report on the Capitol Visitor Center construction 

project on time and with jointly agreed upon recommendations 

from the two agencies. I believe this was a very useful exercise. It 

should keep the Architect of the Capitol from repeating problems 

it has experienced on the Capitol Visitor Center project in future 

construction projects. From what I saw from the wish list that 

came out of the House side, there is going to be major construction 

going on around here for some time and I hope we can implement 

those lessons learned. 

This report points out the need for better methods for incentives 

for contractor performance, improved coordination and communication, maintaining a solid project schedule, and clarifying the role 

of the construction management contractor. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. What time 

would you like to wind up? I have a lot of questions. We may not 

have time to address of all them and I would submit some of those 

but I have them prioritized and I’ll ask them in their order, depending on how much time I may have. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I think we have sufficient time, you may take 

15 minutes for questions if that is good. If not, I will be happy to 

have you submit those for the record. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Would you like to ask a few now? Go right 

ahead. 

Senator ALLARD. Let me take a few. I will, Madam Chairman, if 

you don’t mind. 

UTILITY TUNNELS

I want to first discuss the utility tunnels. It has been over 1 year 

since the Office of Compliance filed a complaint for the AOC’s failure to remedy safety concerns in the utility tunnels. Congress approved $27.6 million in emergency supplemental funding last year 

to begin to remediate these problems. What has been accomplished 

in the last year on the remediation of the tunnel problems? I believe some of the tunnels that we thought were the greatest risk 

perhaps aren’t as great as a risk and some of the tunnels we 
15 

thought were relatively safe aren’t as safe as we assumed. So I 

think there has been some readjustment on priorities and I wish 

you would address that. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. Thank you. In terms of the emergency supplemental that the subcommittee was able to provide, we have now 

obligated nearly $25 million to make headway on the repairs to the 

utility tunnels. We have completed, as of the end of December, I 

think, December 29, the comprehensive facility condition assessment of all of the walkable tunnels. That’s the document that outlines exactly what the problems are and exactly what needs to be 

completed. As the result of that, we were able to award much of 

that emergency supplemental money. 

TUNNEL CONDITION ASSESSMENT

There are some things that have changed since our initial look 

in April 2006. Chief among them are the condition of the ‘‘Y’’ tunnel versus the condition of the ‘‘R’’ tunnel. Clearly, the condition assessment noted that the ‘‘R’’ tunnel is in worse structural condition 

than the ‘‘Y’’ tunnel. In addition, one of the things we learned recently in the ‘‘R’’ tunnel is that not only does the roof of the ‘‘R’’ 

tunnel need to be replaced, much of the walls along that tunnel 

also need to be replaced. That’s something that we had not anticipated. 

Similarly, the condition assessment noted some deterioration in 

the ‘‘G’’ tunnel that we had not anticipated as well. 

In terms of what has been accomplished, we have abated asbestos in the ‘‘B’’ tunnel and in the ‘‘V’’ tunnel. We’ve found the presence of mold in the ‘‘B’’ tunnel and we have abated that. Currently 

under construction is one new egress point in the ‘‘Y’’ tunnel and 

we have recently awarded a contract for a second egress portion on 

the ‘‘Y’’ tunnel. As I noted, we completed the condition assessments 

and we’re currently in the ‘‘Y’’ tunnel, cleaning the dust and debris 

out of that tunnel. 

SCHEDULING DELAYS

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Ayers. I’d like to move to the 

CVC. 

I understand that you are reassessing the schedule and plan to 

get that done by early April. Is the project continuing to miss 2 

weeks in the project schedule every month and is this a problem 

we’re going to continue to see under your leadership? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, there’s no question if you look back at the history of the project, in the last year, we’ve lost 2 weeks in every 

month. Clearly to me, that indicates that our schedule is not realistic. So what we’re doing now is we’re going back and re-evaluating that schedule to ensure it is realistic and re-baseline that so 

that we don’t continue to slip 2 weeks every month. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE TESTIMONY

Senator ALLARD. Well, Madam Chairman, I’ve had the Government Accountability Office sitting here in prior hearings, giving us 

a report and how they feel about CVC progress. They have been 

our eyes and ears and I’m not saying that we necessarily have to 
16 

have them at this particular point in time but it does bring to my 

attention our tunnel problem. I might suggest to you, in considering on the tunnel issue, where I think we’re going to perhaps run 

into similar delay problems that we ran into with the CVC that we 

have the GAO to monitor the project. They act as our watchdog. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I most certainly will consider that because I 

know this tunnel issue has been something that has taken a great 

deal of time of Senator Allard in the past and we want to make 

sure the issues, from health issues to construction issues to safety 

issues are properly addressed. So I’ll consider that. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Ayers, will the recent slip in schedule require you to amend your budget request for CVC operations since 

opening will be 6 months later than was assumed in your budget? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. We are doing that re-evaluation now. We 

have a team that is looking at all of the operational costs that we 

had projected, based upon a February completion date. We are reevaluating those costs now to determine if there are impacts to 

that. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, what will you do to institutionalize the 

lessons learned from the CVC project so as to improve project management in future construction projects because I can see us using 

those lessons learned when we get to the tunnel construction. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. That’s a great point and in order to institutionalize them, we will take them and we will hold a series of 

training seminars with all of our project managers. We have to 

communicate what those lessons were. We’ve already begun that 

process. In recent months, we’ve started an Architect’s briefing, 

where we pull out one of our independent or one of our ongoing 

construction projects, and brief that to our senior leadership team. 

We’ve had people like Bob Hixon come as well and offer some advice on current projects, lessons learned on projects, and how this 

issue on the CVC has been handled and how we could better handle the issue on a different project. So that cross pollerization is already underway. 

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate you keeping that in the forefront 

because there definitely are lessons to be learned there, things that 

we can correct in future projects. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGET

Last year, we were told that the fiscal year 2008 budget would 

be the Architect of the Capitol’s first performance-based budget. 

Could you tell us how the 2008 budget is different from previous 

budgets in this regard? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, our 2008 budget is not necessarily a performance-based budget. I think that is planned for fiscal year 2009. In 

2008, our budget is currently based on our strategic plan but it 

doesn’t ultimately get to a complete performance-based budget yet. 

We have to roll out and complete our cost accounting system before 

we are able to achieve that goal. We’ve had some slowdowns in 

that process over the last year. The continuing resolution is affecting us right now with our ability to retain consultants to help us 

with that, but we have developed a strategic plan. The budget does 
17 

follow the strategic plan but ultimately, the costs that are associated with each of the individual elements in the strategic plan are 

not quite in our budget yet. So we anticipate that will happen in 

the 2009 budget request. 

Senator ALLARD. I felt all along that we’ve been more than agreeable as far as meeting your budget needs that you’ve requested and 

so you’re saying that you need more money for this? Or is it the 

cost accounting problem that is delaying this? 

Mr. AYERS. No, I don’t think we need more money for the cost 

accounting system. It’s the fact that we have a continuing resolution this year that affects our ability to spend that money this year. 

So it is—I guess it is a money problem this year, which is slowing 

down the implementation of our cost accounting system. 

Senator ALLARD. All along, we’ve made sure you had the money 

and kept the project going. We didn’t want any money tied up that 

wasn’t available so I do hope that we can get the cost accounting 

lined up quickly so that we can begin to apply some logical approach to your budget. So I’d encourage you to get that put together without delay. If you can do this in the next budgeting cycle, 

that would be good. I’d be very pleased. 

CAPITOL POWER PLANT

Madam Chairman, let me go to one other issue that’s been a 

problem we’ve had to deal with, again on meeting timelines and 

budget, and that’s the west refrigeration plant project. Last year, 

we were told that the $100 million west refrigeration plant expansion would be finished by last summer. I understand you are now 

projecting completion for this summer. Why do we have continued 

delays there? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. The west refrigeration plant—it’s really two 

projects in one. First is the west refrigeration plant that we are expecting completion in June of this year. We have taken beneficial 

occupancy of the chillers. They’ve been running for several weeks 

now effectively, so we’re comfortable with the construction. We’re 

going through the final checks and balances and the closeout process over the next month. It has been delayed through significant 

problems found during the commissioning process. Contractors 

have had to go back and redo some work and retune the systems. 

Similarly, we found significant differing site conditions and underground utilities. An 8-inch gas line has caused several months 

delay in that project so similarly, it’s delayed until June. 

The second portion of that is the digital control system on our 

boilers. That project we expected, similarly, to have done this fall. 

But, an outage on one of our boilers through most of last year, from 

January through October, delayed the implementation of the control system on those boilers. So as soon as the winter months are 

past us, we’ll begin the implementation of that control system on 

the boilers and expect that to be done in December. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS

Senator ALLARD. The GAO recommended the Architect of the 

Capitol develop a staffing plan for significantly reducing and then 

retooling the staffing at the Power Plant. What has been done to 

meet those recommendations? 
18 

Mr. AYERS. We do have a staffing plan in place. With the delays 

that are present in the west refrigeration plant as well as the digital control system of the boilers, we believe it’s important not to 

implement those staffing reductions until those automated control 

systems are in place and employees are ready to use them. Doing 

so now, we think would be premature. It’s unfortunate we faced the 

delays and the breakdown in one of our major boilers but we think 

it would be premature to do it now until we have those automated 

controls. I think those staffing reductions were based on the automated controls. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chairman, as you can tell from our line 

of questioning, we’ve got three major projects out here: the tunnels, 

the Capitol Visitor Center and the Power Plant that have been 

plagued with delays. I don’t envy you in the position that you’re in 

right now because I think you have some real challenges. I think 

this subcommittee has some real challenges ahead of us to oversee 

these, to make sure we can keep these delays to a minimum at the 

very least. So thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Allard, for your knowledge and interest in this subject and I really appreciate your assistance as I get started on this subcommittee. 

POWER PLANT OPERATIONS EXPENSES

Let me follow up on the Capitol Power Plant for a minute. What 

is the estimate for the reduction of operating expenses when the 

new Power Plant is operational as opposed to the last Power Plant? 

Are we going to reduce the workforce, be able to reduce the workforce by 40 percent or 50 percent or more, in terms of operating 

staff? 

Mr. AYERS. Madam Chairman, I’ll have to respond to that for the 

record. We do expect to be able to achieve some reductions in staff. 

The new chiller plant is significantly more energy efficient than the 

old plant so there will be some operating reductions there as well. 

I’ll have to research those and pull those percentages together for 

you. 

COMMUNITY GROUP RELATIONSHIPS

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay, if you would. And as a resident of Capitol Hill myself, as some of you may know, I understand that there 

are several civic organizations on Capitol Hill, including Moms on 

the Hill, CHAMPS, which is the Capitol Hill Association of Merchants and Professionals, that are concerned about the environmental impacts of the Power Plant and also the aesthetics of the 

plant, relative to the neighbors and neighborhood. Can you comment about what your relationship is with those community 

groups? How do you interface with them and would you define that 

relationship as open and cordial or in another way? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. I do believe the relationship with the 

Moms group is open and cordial. We have met with them as recently as this December and understand their concerns and we are 

responsive to their concerns. Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with 
19 

the CHAMPS group. I don’t know if we’ve met with them or not— 

I’ll have to research that and let you know that for the record. 

We’ve communicated to these groups that the Power Plant is in 

compliance with its title 5 permit. So we do maintain open relationships, we do occasionally get phone calls that we respond to immediately and we do think that relationship is open and communicative. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I just think it is very important. Sometimes 

I think that it’s overlooked that this complex has major impacts on 

the neighborhoods surrounding the Capitol. While the neighbors 

are generally more than pleased and honored to live in proximity 

to the Capitol, we have to realize that it does impact these neighborhoods. We are a big player in a relatively small sized city. Not 

that Washington, DC, is by any means a small town, but it is less 

than 600,000 people and the Federal Government has a huge impact on the residents of the city. So I would urge you all to be as 

sensitive as you can be to the neighborhood groups. 

CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIZATION

Senator Allard talked about the tunnels, which is important. I 

am interested to know, Mr. Ayers, are you directed by any particular law that is on the books as to prioritizing the improvements 

of the Capitol or are you asked to give your professional judgment 

about the improvements at the Capitol that are necessary? I’m not 

talking about operation and maintenance. I’m talking about improvements. Or is it a combination of that or is it requests from 

Members of Congress to consider major improvements? Could you 

describe that for the record, the process of beginning to consider 

major improvements to the complex? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am, we certainly do have a series of building 

codes and laws and regulations which with we comply. That certainly is part of our project planning process and our long-term 

process is to be in compliance with those laws. Similarly, as we’ve 

developed the Capitol complex master plan, it’s been a deliberative 

process that we’ve gone out and reached out to Members and committees to get input of what the long-term vision of the Capitol 

complex is. So we do get input from Members and committee staff 

as to what the needs are. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And it’s all wrapped up into the 5-year planning process or a 5-year master plan? 

Mr. AYERS. It’s wrapped up into the 20-year master plan that we 

are working to budget in 5-year increments. 

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chairman, may I? 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, please. Go ahead. 

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN FOLLOW UP

Senator ALLARD. I’d just like to follow up on that question a little 

bit, if I might. I just want to point to one specific example. I’m not 

questioning your priority setting. I just want to understand your 

process, like the chairman does here. This has to do with the warehouse of the Library of Congress. Last year, your budget included 

funds for a new warehouse at Fort Meade for the Library of Congress and I noticed that this project did not make the cut in your 
20 

budget request for 2008 and I’d like to know why. I’m not questioning your decision. I’d just like to know your process on that. 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly. Last year, our project prioritization included importance, project importance, and we evaluated every 

project against these five pre-established criteria that noted project 

importance, including historic preservation and mission and economics and life safety and security elements and each project was 

given a relative score and that’s how we prioritized the project in 

our budget. 

We’ve enhanced that process in the last year to not only look at 

project importance but we also look at project type, such as deferred maintenance, capital renewal, capital investment, and capital construction. We generally will put deferred maintenance and 

capital renewal projects toward the top of our list and capital construction to the bottom, as we want to take care of what we have 

before we build new. That’s the second element. 

And the third element, project urgency, is now part of our evaluation process. As we go through with condition assessments from 

our independent vendor, looking at all of our buildings and systems, each of those is given an urgency rating. We determine 

whether it needs to be done this year, or in 5 years, or in 7 years. 

So those two layers of project type and project urgency had been 

overlaid on our budget process and prioritization process this year, 

which puts that particular project further down the list. 

Senator ALLARD. That’s because that is a new construction 

project and based on that, it got moved down some and it was less 

urgent than some of the other things that you had, is that basically 

what you said? 

Mr. AYERS. That’s exactly correct. 

FORT MEADE LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE

Senator ALLARD. The Librarian has gone and requested that the 

warehouse be in his own budget. Do you support that approach? 

Mr. AYERS. I think there may be some merit to that. In my judgment, the Architect is often placed in a very tenuous position of 

passing judgment on the Librarian of Congress’ projects and the 

Chief of Police’s projects and the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the 

Chief Administration Officer of the House, among others. We have 

tried to develop an objective process but certainly, we think the logistics center at Fort Meade for the Library of Congress is a very 

important project. I know the Librarian believes that it is absolutely critical and it needs to be done this year. So from my perspective, I think if those things were in their own individual budgets, there would be a more collaborative approach to those projects. 

I think those individual organizations may be more accountable for 

the projects that they submit and they can even do tradeoffs in 

their own budgets about what they may prioritize and what they 

push off to a different year in order to get a particular project. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Senator Allard, I have completed 

my line of questioning. Did you have anything else that you would 

like to get onto the record before we close the meeting? 

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I have one more issue. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Go right ahead. 
21 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS

Senator ALLARD. I hope it doesn’t take too long. It has to do with 

information technology. Your budget includes $22 million for information technology. Now, that’s a 60-percent jump in resources over 

fiscal year 2006. It kind of catches our attention. This includes $3.7 

million for your financial management system and then $1.7 million for an inventory control system. Can you explain the need for 

a large increase in IT projects? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. We believe that increase is absolutely vital 

to our success, vital to our ability to close out the remaining GAO 

recommendations that are from our general management review. 

Similarly, our ability to sustain and institutionalize our financial 

management practices and continue our clean audit opinions, we 

think are based on this financial management request we’ve made. 

Similarly, in the last 3 years, we’ve been underfunded in our information technology systems. It is a significant request. We understand that. But we think it is vitally important to our continued 

success. 

Senator ALLARD. As a result of not keeping up your IT, has there 

been any degradation in agency services? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely, sir. This year, for example, we planned 

to do our Project Information Center. It’s our ability to track all of 

our ongoing projects in one comprehensive electronic information 

system. We don’t have such a system now. It’s a recommendation 

by GAO that we produce one. We have that money in our 2007 

budget. We’re not able to do it because of the continuing resolution 

and you’ll now find that in our 2008 budget. So similarly, in our 

ability to achieve project success and manage schedules, we think 

it is an important part of that request. 

Senator ALLARD. The GAO in their management review state 

that AOC made progress in improving your IT management controls and accountability but they say that work remains to fully implement an effective agencywide approach to IT management. In 

light of GAO’s findings, are any of your 2008 budget requests for 

information technology projects premature? 

Mr. AYERS. No, sir, I don’t think so. I think the money that is 

in our 2008 request will enable us to achieve those recommendations. 

Senator ALLARD. You haven’t prioritized all your IT investments 

as the GAO recommended, have you? Or did you prioritize those? 

Mr. AYERS. I’d have to answer that for the record. 

Senator ALLARD. Would you get us a written response on that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Yes, the AOC is working with the GAO to reach a resolution on the IT investment 

management recommendations. The AOC has made significant progress and continues to work with the GAO to resolve remaining issues. The GAO recommended 

that the AOC develop and implement IT investment management processes. The 

AOC has implemented processes and assigned specific roles and responsibilities to 

senior-level review boards. The AOC has begun to implement portfolio-based investment decision-making processes, including developing criteria to select investments 

that best support AOC goals, objectives and mission. The AOC is continuing to work 

towards prioritizing all of the necessary IT investments. 
22 

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chairman, thank you. 

DIVERSE MANAGEMENT

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. This has been an excellent hearing. I will close with a comment and a thank you on a lighter but 

important note. I understand that over one-half of your positions 

have been filled by women, your senior positions and I want to 

commend you for that. Many of our agencies within the legislative 

branch are trying to make sure that they are seeking diverse and 

professional talent in their hiring practices. And I hope that might 

be reflective of the tour that I took of the Capitol Visitor Center, 

where I was told and happy to hear that the lavatory space is doubled or tripled for the women visitors to the Capitol center. So 

since this is an issue in public buildings everywhere, let me say as 

a new chairman, I thank you for that consideration. 

Mr. AYERS. You’re not the only one to be concerned about that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That is correct because a lot of men do a lot 

of waiting as well. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

If there are any additional questions, they will be submitted to 

your Office for response in the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Question. Please provide a graph of the percentage of AOC funds spent on operation and maintenance relative to new construction over the last 20 years. 

Answer. The attached chart (Attachment 1) outlines funds for operations and 

maintenance relative to projects for the past 15 years and our fiscal year 2008 budget request. Over the last 20 years, the AOC’s financial systems and budget process 

have changed several times. The information gathered from fiscal year 1993 to 

present provides the most concise budget numbers related to maintenance relative 

to new construction. 
23 

WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT

Question. Please provide a detailed explanation for the West Refrigeration Plant 

Expansion delays, and a schedule for completing all elements including the Digital 

Control System. 

Answer. There are three major items that adversely affected the construction 

schedule of the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project; differing site conditions, 

contractor technical complications and Government delays. 

Differing Site Conditions.—The two most significant differing site conditions that 

were discovered on this project were the 8 inch high pressure Washington Gas main 

and the WASA sewer reconstruction. 

—The 8 inch high pressure gas main was not detailed on the construction documents. Once the gas main, which exclusively serves the U.S. Capitol Power 

Plant boilers, was discovered, it had to be relocated so that the new WASA 

sewer could be constructed. The relocation of the gas line took place from May– 

September 2003, an approximate 5 month project delay. Washington Gas insisted that the gas line be relocated, and it had to be executed while maintaining service to the boiler house, as the U.S. Capitol Power Plant could not operate the boilers reliably without natural gas service. 

—The 100 year old WASA sewer as-built details did not accurately depict all of 

the conditions. This differing site condition necessitated the need to redesign 

the sewer tie-in points. Different soil conditions in this area also caused delays. 

Contractor Technical Complications.—The contractor experienced delays due to 

the WASA sewer work. This contributed to the contractor’s inability to complete the 

fire sprinkler system installation and the functional testing of the mechanical equipment. 

—The WASA sewer tie-in was more difficult to construct than the contractor had 

anticipated, resulting in an execution of a by-pass pumping solution. The bypass pumping solution took place from March–August 2004, an approximate 6 

month delay. 

—The contractor did not complete the project’s life safety systems; fire sprinkler, 

fire alarm and elevator in accordance with the negotiated milestones, which resulted in concurrent delays. 

—The contractor had to repeatedly perform control function testing to document 

reliable chilled water systems. 

Government Delays.—The delays that were caused by the Government were related to project redesigns, the inability to isolate old equipment because of faulty 
24 

valves, control integration between the new and old refrigeration plants, and additional AOC operational coordination and training. 

—Fire sprinkler/fire alarm redesign issues.—In March 2006, the contract scope increased to install the revised sprinkler system. Several new sprinkler design criteria were added to the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project, resulting 

in additional pipe risers, changes to branch piping layouts, reclassification of 

the sprinkler zones, adding side wall sprinklers at the east face of the new cooling towers and increasing the pipe thickness to schedule 40 pipe for sprinkler 

piping inside the cooling towers. 

—Water chemical treatment system.—The water chemical treatment system was 

revised to allow for compatibility with the type and quantity of chemicals for 

the treatment of both the existing West Refrigeration Plant and the new condenser water systems. The objective was to reconfigure the size and type of 

chemical storage tanks that are being provided under the West Refrigeration 

Plant Expansion Project. As part of this revision, the pump skids, controllers 

and associated fill piping for the system were revised for safety and operational 

reasons. 

—Control integration.—The distributed control system control logic and sequence 

changes were revised in the contract, providing controls to reconfigure and automate the existing West Refrigeration Plant and tie into the new West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project. 

—AOC operational coordination.—Piping connections between the new and existing refrigeration plants were reconfigured to ensure a reliable means of sending 

chilled water out to the U.S. Capitol campus. The scope of work involved short 

outages to the existing West Plant, and could only be performed during winter 

months. During the first two initial short outages, the Capitol Power Plant was 

unable to isolate the systems due to faulty valves, causing some of the outages 

to be delayed until the 2006–2007 winter period when the valves and piping 

could be replaced. 

Boiler Plant Distributed Controls System.—This scope of work in the boiler plant 

is part of the base contract under bid option 1, and was originally contracted to be 

completed by September 1, 2005. In January 2005, the distributed control system 

project was significantly changed from control logic and data collection spread 

throughout the boiler plant to two centralized data collection and processing rooms, 

also called rack rooms. The distributed control system data, via hard wire control 

points, was also redesigned in such a way that loss of either rack room would still 

enable the plant to be functional and meet the heating and cooling requirements 

of the U.S. Capitol complex. 

The complete redesign was further amended in May 2006 to match the existing 

burner management systems that remained in place. The redesign also integrated 

the existing boiler plant master control systems. Follow-on coordination between the 

Capitol Power Plant operations staff and the contractor to maintain operations was 

more difficult than anticipated and impacted the overall contract schedule. In addition, boiler repairs, boiler maintenance schedules and operational reliability limited 

the time frame that the boilers could be taken off-line for control integration. 

Schedule.—We are currently negotiating a revised contract completion date with 

the contractor. The projected schedule for completing the remaining elements of the 

contract is depicted on the attached time line (Attachment 2). The new West Refrigeration Plant Expansion chiller systems were turned over on January 26, 2007. Between now and April 16th, the contractor will be working on piping and controls 

integration between the new and old refrigeration plants. The existing West Refrigeration Plant is currently off line while the contractor connects the large bore piping 

between the two plants. The remainder of the time will be used to complete other 

work such as: Transfer electric panel loads to new load centers; Commission the 

new fuel oil system; Correct deficiencies and; Close-out the West Refrigeration Plant 

Expansion Project. 

We have experienced a number of design and operation delays that have impacted 

the completion of the distributed control system for the new boilers. To ensure Capitol Power Plant boiler plant reliability to the U.S. Capitol campus we will begin 

the integration of the boilers to the new Distributed Control System in July 2007, 

during the summer months. This integration is scheduled to be completed not later 

than spring 2008. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LANDRIEU. The meeting is recessed. Thank you. 
25 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Friday, March 2, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(27) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Landrieu. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

Senator LANDRIEU. The subcommittee will come to order. Good 

morning, and welcome to everyone. 

Regrettably, Senator Allard is attending a family funeral in Colorado this morning and will not be able to join us. So, our thoughts, 

prayers, and condolences are with him and his family this morning. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

But I do understand that he’s prepared a statement for the 

record, and, at this time, I will submit it on his behalf. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Madam Chairman, I regret that I cannot attend this morning’s hearing with the 

Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Compliance. 

There are many important issues before these agencies, not the least of which is 

the large percentage increase being requested by each—especially the Government 

Printing Office with a 49 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution level. 

The Government Accountability Office is requesting $523.8 million for fiscal year 

2008, which will return GAO to the fiscal year 2006 operating level. Thanks to 

Comptroller General David Walker and his staff, our subcommittee has received excellent assistance in overseeing legislative branch agencies, particularly the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Visitor Center, as well as the Capitol Police management issues. 

An issue I would like GAO to address is its capacity to continue to undertake 

technology assessment work. I understand there is interest in starting up the old 

Office of Technology Assessment, and frankly I’m very concerned about that idea. 

GAO had a pilot project to do technology assessment projects several years ago, 

which was very successful. GAO subsequently completed three additional projects 

on technology assessment which were requested on a bi-partisan and bicameral 

basis, and were well-received as I understand it. I would like to know whether GAO 

can continue to perform such work, on a bi-partisan, bicameral basis, with appro-
28 

priate peer review, and whether this is consistent with GAO’s mission. The notion 

of starting up a new agency at a time when we have extraordinary budget constraints does not make sense. 

With respect to the Government Printing Office, I would note that Bruce James 

retired at the end of last year and the Acting Public Printer, Bill Turri, has been 

ably filling his shoes. GPO’s request of roughly $182 million is a 49 percent increase, as I mentioned earlier. I understand that this increase is in part due to the 

need to re-pay the revolving fund for shortfalls in Congressional printing and binding costs, and the 2006 updating of the U.S. Code. GPO is able to use the revolving 

fund for these shortfalls, but we must pay those funds back. 

In addition, GPO has numerous information technology improvements which have 

been deferred or are nearing completion and need the final infusion of funds to complete. Having said that, we know your full request likely will be difficult to fully 

accommodate, so we look forward to seeing a prioritization of your request. 

The Congressional Budget Office has a new director, Dr. Peter Orszag, who comes 

to CBO with excellent credentials and I look forward to working with him. CBO is 

requesting a steady-state budget of almost $38 million and 235 employees, but is 

now asking for additional funds for health-care related work. I look forward to getting more information on the need for that additional work. 

Finally, the Office of Compliance, represented by Ms. Tamara Chrisler, is requesting just over $4 million. The office is in the midst of completing a settlement with 

the Architect of the Capitol on the complaint OOC filed over a year ago on the utility tunnels. That is a precedent-setting case and that has taken tremendous resources. We look forward to that coming to conclusion shortly so that AOC can move 

ahead expeditiously with its repairs and improvements in the tunnels. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Today, we meet to take testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budgets for the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), the Government Printing Office (GPO), the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO), and the Office of Compliance (OOC). Since we 

have four agencies testifying this morning, I ask that each of you 

just present your remarks in summary form. I’ve read all of your 

statements, and they will be included for the record. 

We’re looking at some pretty substantial increases in your steady 

budget requests. While I realize the continuing resolution held you 

to 2006 dollars in fiscal year 2007, we really need you to think 

about the priorities that you have as we move forward in this process. Priorities in this context may mean overall lower dollars that 

we have to work with, but we will explore this as the subcommittee 

moves forward. 

I want to welcome today’s witnesses: David Walker, Bill Turri, 

Peter Orszag, and Tamara Chrisler. Thank you all for attending, 

this morning. 

The Government Accountability Office budget request totals $523 

million, which is an increase of 8 percent over the current year and 

would fund an increase of 104 full-time employees. I appreciate the 

oversight your agency has provided to this subcommittee, on both 

the Capitol Visitor Center and the utility tunnel repair work. I 

want to particularly thank Bernie Ungar, Terry Dorn, and Gloria 

Jarmon, of your staff, for their hard work and assistance to me and 

to my staff on these complicated and time consuming projects. 

I hope to have a detailed conversation with you today, Mr. Walker, about a number of workforce issues, including the implementation of the GAO Human Capital Act of 2004, legislation you requested from Congress. Some of the promises that you made have 

not yet been completely fulfilled, and we’ll talk about where we are 

in that process a little later. 
29 

The Government Printing Office budget request totals $182 million, a 49-percent increase over fiscal year 2007 and would include 

86 additional employees. 

Mr. Turri, I hope you’re prepared to defend this request, which 

is literally doubling your current budget. I understand that there 

are some expansions and changes in technology, and we’d like to 

hear more about that today. The Congressional Budget Office budget request totals $38 million, which is an 8-percent increase over current year, and would 

support the current level of 235 employees. I understand the CBO 

is looking into expanding the scope of their work to include identifying and analyzing ways to control healthcare spending. I look forward to hearing more about that proposal this morning. And, finally, the Office of Compliance is requesting $4.1 million, which is an increase of $1 million, or 32 percent, over the current 

year, and would fund four additional employees. 

Ms. Chrisler, I appreciate the fact that your organization has had 

an increased workload over the last year because of the problems 

in the utility tunnels, and I look forward to hearing an update on 

the progress being made by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) in 

addressing the issues in the complaint filed by your agency. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICES’ FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET

REQUEST

Now, Mr. Walker, if you would begin. And let me thank you for 

your visit to my office. I found it extremely enlightening and insightful. I want to begin by commending you on what I consider to 

be an excellent job that you’re doing. I want to help you to continue 

to achieve more of the goals that you outlined to me. But I’d like 

to allow you to make your statement. We will then question some 

of the increases in your budget. 

Mr. WALKER. Sure. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be 

here today to talk about GAO’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

I would like to thank you and the subcommittee for your past 

support of GAO. I’m especially appreciative of your efforts to try to 

provide us some additional funding above fiscal year 2006 levels, 

rather than just a flat-line continuing resolution, which we had 

been under. That helped us to avoid unpaid furloughs, but, as you 

know, because we still had a shortfall, we could only make our pay 

raises retroactive to February 18, 2007, rather than January 7. 

I’m particularly pleased with the results that GAO achieved for 

the Congress and the American people. For fiscal year 2006, we returned $105 for every $1 invested in GAO—number one in the 

world. Second place in the world is 24 to 1. I think it’s important— 

and I know you believe this—to consider results, not just resources, 

because the U.S. Government needs to do a better job, I believe, 

in linking resources to results. 

While 2006 was a record year for us in many regards, we’ve had 

to delay and cancel a number of items, because we’re operating 

under constrained resource levels. As you undoubtedly know, since 

2003 GAO’s budget has not kept pace with inflation. Our purchasing power is down 3 percent since 2003, which concerns me be-
30 

cause about 80 percent of our budget is for payroll costs, and, needless to say, you have to pay people more than inflation, especially 

top performers. The other 20 percent of our budget is primarily 

nondiscretionary costs which are subject to inflationary increases. 

So, that’s a real concern. 

Candidly, Madam Chair, my concern is we’ve done a lot of things 

to improve our economy, our efficiency, and our effectiveness, but 

they’re about played out. I’m very concerned that unless we receive 

a more reasonable resource allocation that’s better aligned with our 

results, it’s going to start to have an adverse effect on employee 

morale, on our ability to serve the Congress, and on our ability to 

generate the type of unparalleled return on investment that we’ve 

delivered to the Congress and the country in recent years. 

We have, and will continue to take steps to try to deal with constrained resource levels. We are asking for about an 8-percent increase for next year, which is designed to try to help deal with 

some of the deterioration in our purchasing power in recent years, 

and to be able to fund some of the projects that we’ve had to defer 

for quite a number of years. 

REBUILDING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE OVER THE NEXT

6 YEARS

Looking beyond fiscal 2008 I promised the Congress, when I 

came in, in 1998, that I would do everything that I could to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of GAO. Nonetheless I was asked virtually every year, ‘‘What’s the optimum staffing 

level for GAO?’’ I’ve always said, ‘‘I’m not going to ask for any 

more, at this point in time, until I believe that we’ve accomplished 

the first objective.’’ I believe we’ve accomplished that objective now. 

I have 61⁄2 years left until the end of my 15-year term. Based upon 

preliminary estimates, and based upon the many challenges that 

the Congress and the country face, I believe we and the Congress 

need to think about taking GAO, over the next 6 years, from about 

3,200 personnel to potentially up to about 3,750, for a number of 

reasons, which I will provide in detail as a supplement for you to 

consider in the future. This does not relate to our fiscal 2008 budget request. It is an attempt to try to look longer-range and to try 

to help begin the discussion over our longer-range role and resources, because I think it’s important to do so. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I’m happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER

Mrs. Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee today in support of the fiscal year 2008 budget request for 

the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The requested funding will help 

us continue our support of the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and will help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the Federal 

Government for the benefit of the American people. An overview of GAO’s strategic 

plan for serving the Congress and our core values is included as appendix I. 
31 

I would also like to thank you and your subcommittee for your past support of 

GAO. I am especially appreciative of your efforts to help us avoid a furlough of our 

staff during fiscal year 2007. Had we not received additional funds this year and 

not taken other cost minimization actions, GAO would have likely been forced to 

furlough most staff for up to 5 days without pay. At the same time, due to funding 

shortfalls, we were not able to make pay adjustments retroactive to January 7, 

2007. 

It is through the efforts of our dedicated and capable staff that we were able to 

provide the Congress with the professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced information it needs to meet the full range of its constitutional responsibilities. I am extremely pleased and proud to say that we helped 

the Federal Government achieve a total of $51 billion in financial benefits in fiscal 

year 2006—a record high that represents a return on investment of $105 for every 

dollar the Congress invested in us. As a result of our work, we also documented 

1,342 nonfinancial benefits that helped to improve service to the public, change 

laws, and transform government operations. The funding we received in fiscal year 

2006 allowed us to conduct work that addressed many difficult issues confronting 

the Nation, including U.S. border security, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina activities, 

the tax gap and tax reform, and issues affecting the health and pay of military service members. Our client-focused performance measures indicate that the Congress 

valued and was very pleased with our work overall. 

While fiscal year 2006 was a record year, we will be required to constrain vital 

support to our staff and engagements in fiscal year 2007 in order to manage within 

available funds. Although the additional funding provided by the subcommittee allows us to avoid a furlough of our staff, we must implement a number of actions 

to cancel, reduce, or defer costs in order to manage within fiscal year 2007 funding 

constraints. In fact, our fiscal year 2007 budget for most programs and line items 

retains funding levels at or near fiscal year 2006 funding levels—requiring that we 

absorb inflationary increases, which in turn reduce our purchasing power, erode 

progress toward our strategic goals, and ultimately affect our client service and employee support. For example, in our travel account—a critical element in our ability 

to conduct firsthand evaluation of federal funding and program activities—we expect 

transportation costs and per diem rates to rise (as they do annually). Also, our ability to hire staff to replace departing staff, address key succession planning challenges and skill gaps, and maintain a skilled workforce will be adversely affected. 

While we must hold some critical employee benefits at last year’s funding level, such 

as transit benefits and student loan repayments, our pool of employees eligible to 

retire has increased since last year. Also, some other agencies may be offering increased benefits that will be attractive to our employees and potential recruits. In 

addition, we have reduced or deferred needed targeted investments and initiatives 

geared to further increasing productivity and effectiveness, achieving cost savings, 

and addressing identified management challenges. 

Unfortunately, we expect that these actions will adversely affect our ability to respond to congressional requests, making it even more difficult to address supply and 

demand imbalances in areas such as health care, disaster assistance, homeland security, the global ‘‘war on terrorism,’’ energy and natural resources, and forensic auditing. Our diminished capacity will likely, in turn, ultimately result in reduced annual financial benefits, findings, and recommendations to the Congress and the Nation and necessitate reductions in our 

—ability to provide timely and responsive information to support congressional 

deliberations; 

—testimonies on the Congress’s legislative and oversight agenda; 

—products containing recommendations for improvements in government operations; 

—analyses of executive branch agencies budget justifications to support appropriations decisions; 

—support on reauthorization activities for pending programs, such as the farm 

bill, Head Start, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the No Child 

Left Behind Act; and 

—oversight of legislative branch programs, including the Capitol Visitor Center. 

In an effort to identify areas for potential improvement and help ensure accountability, we plan to contract with a public accounting firm in fiscal year 2008 to conduct a peer review of our financial audit practice and have an international team 

of auditors conduct an external peer review of our performance audit practices. GAO 

has received clean opinions on its previous external peer reviews. Consistent with 

generally accepted governmental auditing standards, external peer reviews are conducted on a 3-year cycle and serve to validate that the Congress and the American 

people can rely on our work and products. 
32 

In recent years, GAO has worked cooperatively with the appropriation committees 

to submit modest budget requests. During this period, and for a variety of reasons, 

GAO has gone from the largest legislative branch agency to the third largest in 

terms of total budgetary resources. Adjusting for inflation, GAO’s budget authority 

has declined by 3 percent in constant fiscal year 2006 dollars since fiscal year 2003, 

as shown in figure 1. These modest budget results do not adequately recognize the 

return on investment that GAO has been able to generate. In fact, these increases 

have hampered our progress in rebuilding from the downsizing (40 percent reduction in staffing levels) and mandated funding reductions that occurred in the 1990s. 

Although GAO’s fiscal year 2008 budget request represents a 7 percent increase in 

constant dollar terms over our fiscal year 2007 operating plan, it is one of the smallest increases requested in the legislative branch. 

FIGURE 1.—Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Usage, Fiscal Years 

1992–2006 

Shortly after I was appointed Comptroller General in November 1998, I determined that the agency should undertake a major transformation effort. As a result, 

GAO has become more results-oriented, partnerial, and client focused. With your 

support, we have made strategic investments; realigned the organization; streamlined our business processes; modernized our performance classification, compensation, and reward systems; enhanced our ability to attract, retain and reward top talent; enhanced the technology and infrastructure supporting our staff and systems; 

and made other key investments. These transformational efforts have allowed GAO 

to model best practices, lead by example, and provide significant support to congressional hearings, while achieving record results and very high client satisfaction ratings without significant increases in funding. 

We have taken a number of steps to deal with funding shortfalls in the past few 

years; however, we cannot continue to employ the same approaches. Our staff has 

become increasingly stretched and we are experiencing backlogs in several areas of 

critical importance to the Congress (e.g., health care, homeland security, energy and 

natural resources). In addition, we have deferred key initiatives and technology upgrades (e.g., engagement and administrative process upgrades) for several years and 

it would not be prudent to continue to do so. These actions are having an adverse 

effect on employee morale, our ability to produce results, and the return on investment that we can generate. 

There is a need for fundamental and dramatic reform to address what the government does, how it does business, and who will do the government’s business. Our 

support to the Congress will likely prove even more critical because of the pressures 

created by our Nation’s current and projected budget deficit and growing long-term 

fiscal imbalance. Also, as we face current and projected supply and demand imbalance issues and a growing workload over the coming years across a wide spectrum 
33 

1 In the spring of 2007, we plan to issue our updated strategic plan covering fiscal years 2007– 

2012 to reflect the agenda for the 110th Congress. 

of issues, GAO will be unable to respond to congressional demands without a significant investment in our future. We have exhausted the results that we can achieve 

based on prior investments. Our ability to continue to produce record results and 

assist the Congress in discharging its Constitutional responsibilities relating to authorization, appropriations, oversight, and other matters will be adversely impacted 

unless we take action now. 

Therefore, our fiscal year 2008 budget request is designed to restore GAO’s funding to more reasonable operating levels. Specifically, we are requesting fiscal year 

2008 budget authority of $530 million, an 8.5 percent increase over our fiscal year 

2007 funding level. The additional funds provided in fiscal year 2007 have helped 

reduce our requested increase for fiscal year 2008 from 9.4 percent to 8.5 percent. 

This funding level also represents a reduction below the request we submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in January as a result of targeted adjustments to our planned fiscal year 2008 hiring plan. Our fiscal year 2008 budget 

request will allow us to achieve our performance goals to support the Congress as 

outlined in our strategic plan 1 and rebuild our workforce capacity to allow us to better respond to supply and demand imbalances in responding to congressional requests. This funding will also help us address our caseload for bid protest filings, 

which have increased by more than 10 percent from fiscal years 2002 through 2006. 

Our workload for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007 suggests a continuation of this 

upward trend in bid protest fillings. 

We will be seeking your commitment and support to provide the funding needed 

to increase GAO’s staffing level to 3,750 over the next 6 years in order to address 

critical needs including supply and demand imbalances, high-risk areas, 21st century challenges questions, technology assessments, and other areas in need of fundamental reform. In addition, as we get closer to when GAO may be able to render 

our opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government and the 

Department of Defense’s financial and related systems, we will need to increase our 

workforce capacity. We will be providing the Congress additional information on the 

basis for and nature of this target later this year. 

Importantly, as I noted last year, we also plan to request legislation that will assist GAO in performing its mission work, and enhance our human capital policies, 

including addressing certain compensation and benefits issues of interest to our employees. We plan to submit our proposal to our Senate and House authorization and 

oversight committees in the near future. 

My testimony today will focus on key efforts that GAO has undertaken to support 

the Congress, our fiscal year 2006 performance results, our budget request for fiscal 

year 2008 to support the Congress and serve the American people, and proposed legislative changes. 

KEY EFFORTS TO SUPPORT THE CONGRESS

As is the case with each new Congress, we are beginning to have discussions with 

regard to many new requests for GAO’s professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, and non-ideological information, analysis, and recommendations. On November 17, 2006, I was pleased to offer three sets of recommendations for your consideration as part of the agenda of the 110th Congress. The first recommendation 

suggests targets for near-term oversight; the second proposes policies and programs 

in need of fundamental reform and re-engineering; the third lists governing issues. 

The proposals represent an effort to synthesize GAO’s institutional knowledge and 

special expertise and suggest both the breadth and the depth of the issues facing 

the new Congress. We at GAO stand ready to assist the 110th Congress in meeting 

its constitutional responsibilities. To be effective, congressional hearings and other 

activities should offer opportunities to share best practices, facilitate governmentwide transformation, and promote accountability for delivering positive results. 

On January 9, 2007, we presented GAO’s assessment of the key oversight issues 

related to Iraq for consideration in developing the oversight agenda of the 110th 

Congress and in analyzing the President’s revised strategy for Iraq. This assessment 

was based on our ongoing work and the 67 Iraq-related reports and testimonies we 

have provided to the Congress since May 2003. Our work spans the security, political, economic, and reconstruction prongs of the U.S. national strategy in Iraq. The 

broad, crosscutting nature of this work helps minimize the possibility of overlap and 

duplication by any individual inspector general. Our work has focused on the U.S. 

strategy and costs of operating in Iraq, training and equipping the Iraqi security 

forces, governance and reconstruction issues, the readiness of U.S. military forces, 
34 

and achieving desired acquisition outcomes. Our current work draws on our past 

work and regular site visits to Iraq and the surrounding region, such as Jordan and 

Kuwait. We plan to establish a presence in Iraq beginning later this fiscal year to 

provide additional oversight of issues deemed important to the Congress; subject to 

approval by the U.S. Department of State and adequate funding. We have requested 

supplemental fiscal year 2007 funds of $374,000 to support this effort. 

In January of this year, we also issued our high-risk series: An Update, which 

identifies federal areas and programs at risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement and those in need of broad-based transformations. The issues affecting 

many of these areas and programs may take years to address, and the report will 

serve as a useful guide for the Congress’s future programmatic deliberations and 

oversight activities. Issued to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our 

high-risk update, first issued in 1993, has helped members of the Congress who are 

responsible for oversight and executive branch officials who are accountable for performance. Our high-risk program focuses on major government programs and operations that need urgent attention or transformation to ensure that our government 

functions in the most economical, efficient, and effective manner possible. Overall, 

our high-risk program has served to identify and help resolve a range of serious 

weaknesses that involve substantial resources and provide critical services to the 

public. Table 1 details our 2007 high-risk list. 

TABLE 1.—GAO’S 2007 HIGH-RISK LIST 

2007 High-Risk Area Year Designated 

High Risk 

Addressing challenges in broad-based transformations: 

Strategic Human Capital Management 1 .................................................................................................... 2001 

Managing Federal Real Property 1 .............................................................................................................. 2003 

Protecting the Federal Government’s Information Systems and the Nation’s Critical Infrastructures ..... 1997 

Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland Security .................................................. 2003 

Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information-Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Homeland Security ........................................................................................................................................................... 2005 

Department of Defense (DOD) Approach to Business Transformation 1 .................................................... 2005 

DOD Business Systems Modernization ............................................................................................... 1995 

DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program ...................................................................................... 2005 

DOD Support Infrastructure Management ......................................................................................... 1997 

DOD Financial Management .............................................................................................................. 1995 

DOD Supply Chain Management (formerly Inventory Management) ................................................. 1990 

DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition ..................................................................................................... 1990 

Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Control Modernization ............................................................ 1995 

Financing the Nation’s Transportation System1 (New) .............................................................................. 2007 

Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S. National Security Interests 1 (New) ... 2007 

Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety 1 (New) ............................................................................ 2007 

Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: 

DOD Contract Management ........................................................................................................................ 1992 

Department of Energy Contract Management ............................................................................................ 1990 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract Management ................................................... 1990 

Management of Interagency Contracting ................................................................................................... 2005 

Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration: 

Enforcement of Tax Laws 1 ......................................................................................................................... 1990 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Business Systems Modernization ............................................................. 1995 

Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs: 

Modernizing Federal Disability Programs 1 ................................................................................................. 2003 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer Insurance Program1 ........................................... 2003 

Medicare Program1 ..................................................................................................................................... 1990 

Medicaid Program1 ..................................................................................................................................... 2003 

National Flood Insurance Program ............................................................................................................. 2006 

1 Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions by the executive branch, in order to effectively address this high-risk 

area. 

Source: GAO. 

In February of this year, we issued a new publication entitled Fiscal Stewardship: 

A Critical Challenge Facing Our Nation that is designed to provide the Congress 

and the American public, in a relatively brief and understandable form, selected 

budget and financial information regarding our Nation’s current financial condition, 

long-term fiscal outlook, and possible ways forward. In the years ahead, our support 

to the Congress will likely prove even more critical because of the pressures created 
35 

by our Nation’s current and projected budget deficit and growing long-term fiscal 

imbalance. Indeed, as the Congress considers those fiscal pressures, it will be grappling with tough choices about what government does, how it does business, and 

who will do the government’s business. GAO is an invaluable tool for helping the 

Congress review, reprioritize, and revise existing mandatory and discretionary 

spending programs and tax policies. 

In addition, I have participated in a series of town hall forums around the Nation 

to discuss the Federal Government’s current financial condition and deteriorating 

long-term fiscal outlook, including the challenges posed by known long-term demographic trends and rising health care costs. These forums, popularly referred to as 

the ‘‘Fiscal Wake-up Tour,’’ are led by the Concord Coalition and also include the 

Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, and a range of ‘‘good government’’ 

groups. The fiscal wake-up tour states the facts regarding the Nation’s current financial condition and long-term fiscal outlook in order to increase public awareness 

and accelerate actions by appropriate Federal, State, and local officials. 

PERFORMANCE, RESULTS, AND PLANS

We anticipate that the funds requested for fiscal year 2008 will support efforts 

similar to those just completed in fiscal year 2006. The following discussions summarize that work. 

In fiscal year 2006, major events like the Nation’s recovery from natural disasters, 

ongoing military conflicts abroad, terrorist threats, and potential pandemics repeatedly focused the public eye on the Federal Government’s ability to operate effectively and efficiently and provide services to Americans when needed. Our work during the year helped the Congress and the public judge how well the Federal Government performed its functions and consider alternative approaches for improving operations and laws when performance was less than adequate. For example, teams 

supporting all three of our external strategic goals performed work related to every 

facet of the Hurricane Katrina and Rita disasters-preparedness, response, recovery, 

long-term recovery, and mitigation. We developed a coordinated and integrated approach to ensure that the Congress’s need for factual information about disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and reconstruction activities along the Gulf Coast 

was met. We examined how federal funds were used during and after the disaster 

and identified the disaster rescue, relief, and rebuilding processes that worked well 

and not so well throughout the effort. To do this, staff drawn from across the agency 

spent time in the hardest hit areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, 

collecting information from government officials at the Federal, State, and local levels as well as from private organizations assisting with this emergency management 

effort. We briefed congressional staff on our preliminary observations early in fiscal 

year 2006 and subsequently issued over 30 reports and testimonies on Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita by fiscal year end, focusing on, among other issues, minimizing 

fraud, waste, and abuse in disaster assistance and rebuilding the New Orleans hospital care system. 

The following tables provide summary information on GAO’s fiscal year 2006 performance and the results achieved in support of the Congress and the American people. Additional information on our performance results can be found in performance 

and accountability highlights fiscal year 2006 at www.gao.gov. 

Table 2 provides examples of how GAO assisted the Nation in fiscal year 2006. 
36 

TABLE 2.—EXAMPLES OF HOW GAO ASSISTED THE NATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2006 

Goal Description GAO Providing Information That Helped To— 

1 Provide timely, quality service to the Congress and the Federal Government to address current and emerging challenges to 

the wellbeing and financial security of 

the American people.

Protect Social Security numbers from abuse; ensure the effectiveness of federal investments in science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics education programs; identify actions needed 

to improve Federal Emergency Management Agency and Red 

Cross coordination for the 2006 hurricane season; highlight 

weaknesses in the Department of Health and Human Services’ 

communications with beneficiaries about the new Medicare prescription drug benefit; identify funding and drug pricing disparities in the federal AIDS/HIV program; strengthen the oversight clinical laboratories; identify challenges the Department 

of Homeland Security faces in controlling illegal immigration 

into the United States; assess the thoroughness of the federal 

fair housing complaint and investigation processes; improve 

the management of federal oil and natural gas royalty revenue; 

develop a strategy for managing wildfires; focus on the shortand long-term challenges of financing the Nation’s transportation infrastructure; and identify outdated mail delivery performance standards used by the U.S. Postal Service. 

2 Provide timely, quality service to the Congress and the Federal Government to respond to changing security threats and 

the challenges of global interdependence.

Identify current and future funding and cost issues related to DOD 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; highlight inefficiencies that 

could hinder DOD’s efforts to reform its business operations; 

improve controls over the issuance of passports and vias and 

increase fraud prevention; improve catastrophic disaster preparedness, response, and recovery; improve the ability of federal agencies to cost effectively acquire goods and services; 

improve the management of payments to U.S. producers injured 

financially by unfairly traded imports; alert the Congress to 

companies that are marketing costly mutual fund products with 

low returns to military service members; identify steps needed 

to overhaul investment and management processes supporting 

major DOD acquisitions; improve security at nuclear power 

plants; improve the Department of Homeland Security’s ability 

to detect nuclear smuggling at U.S. ports; promote government 

efforts to secure sensitive systems and information; and highlight the cost concerns of small public companies that must 

comply with internal control and auditing provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 

3 Help transform the Federal Government’s 

role and how it does business to meet 

21st century challenges.

Improve congressional oversight of the process for reviewing foreign direct investment; strengthen DOD’s information systems 

modernization efforts; highlight serious technical and cost 

challenges affecting the purchase of a critical weather satellite; highlight key practices federal agencies should adopt to 

prevent data breaches and better protect the personal information of U.S. citizens; monitor the development of the 2010 decennial census; identify strategies to reduce the gap between 

the taxes citizens pay and the taxes actually owed; focus attention on the revenue consequences of tax expenditures; identify 

fraud, waste, and abuse in a component of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster assistance program; emphasize the importance of reliable cost information for improving governmentwide cost efficiency; and expose government 

contractors who used for personal gain federal payroll taxes 

withheld from their employees. 

4 Maximize the value of GAO by being a 

model federal agency and a world-class 

professional services organization.

Foster among other federal agencies GAO’s innovative human capital practices, such as broad pay bands; performance-based 

compensation; workforce planning and staffing strategies, policies, and processes; and share GAO’s model business and 

management processes with counterpart organizations in the 

United States and abroad. 

Source: GAO. 
37 

OUTCOMES OF OUR WORK AND THE ROAD AHEAD

During fiscal year 2006, we used 16 annual performance measures that capture 

the results of our work; the assistance we provided to the Congress; our ability to 

attract, retain, develop, and lead a highly professional workforce; and how well our 

internal administrative services help employees get their jobs done and improve 

their work life (see table 3). We generally exceeded the targets we set for all of our 

performance measures, which indicate our ability to produce results for the Nation 

and serve the Congress. 

TABLE 3.—AGENCYWIDE SUMMARY OF ANNUAL MEASURES AND TARGETS 

Performance Measures 2002 

Actual 

2003 

Actual 

2004 

Actual 

2005 

Actual 

2006 

Actual 

2007 

Target 

2008 

Target 

Results: 

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) ............ $37.7 $35.4 $44.0 $39.6 $51.0 $40.0 $41.5 

Nonfinancial benefits ....................................... $906 $1,043 $1,197 $1,409 $1,342 $1,100 $1,150 

Past recommendations implemented (in percent) ............................................................. 79 82 83 85 82 80 80 

New products with recommendations (in percent) ............................................................. 53 55 63 63 65 60 60 

Client: 

Testimonies ....................................................... 216 189 217 179 240 185 220 

Timeliness (in percent) .................................... 96 97 97 97 92 95 95 

People: 

New hire rate (in percent) ............................... 96 98 98 94 94 95 95 

Acceptance rate (in percent) ........................... 81 72 72 71 70 72 72 

Retention rate with retirements (in percent) .. 91 92 90 90 90 90 90 

Retention rate without retirements (in percent) ............................................................. 97 96 95 94 94 94 94 

Staff development (in percent) ........................ 71 67 70 72 76 75 76 

Staff utilization (in percent) ............................ 67 71 72 75 75 78 78 

Leadership (in percent) .................................... 75 78 79 80 79 80 80 

Organizational climate (in percent) ................. 67 71 74 76 73 76 76 

Internal operations: 

Help get job done ............................................. N/A 3.98 4.01 4.10 4.1 4.0 4.0 

Quality of work life ........................................... N/A 3.86 3.96 3.98 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Source: GAO. 

Note: N/A indicates the information is not available. 

In fiscal year 2006, our work generated $51 billion in financial benefits, primarily 

from actions agencies and the Congress took in response to our recommendations. 

Of this amount, about $27 billion resulted from changes to laws or regulations, $10 

billion resulted from agency actions based on our recommendations to improve services to the public, and $14 billion resulted from improvements to core business processes. See figure 2 for examples of our fiscal year 2006 financial benefits. 

FIGURE 2.—GAO’S SELECTED MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2006 

[In billions of dollars] 

Description Amount 

Ensured continued monetary benefits from federal spectrum auctions ..................................................................... 6.1 

Encouraged DOD to identify and reduce unobligated funds in the military services’ operations and maintenance 

budget ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3.9 

Recommended payment methods that cut Medicare costs for durable medical equipment, orthotics, and prosthetics ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2.9 

Helped to ensure that certain U.S. Postal Service retirement-related benefits would be funded ............................. 2.2 

Identified recoverable costs for the Tennessee Valley Authority ................................................................................. 1.8 

Helped to increase collections of civil debt ................................................................................................................ 1.6 

Encouraged the Department of Housing and Urban Development to take actions to reduce improper payments ... 1.4 

Supported the Department of Energy’s efforts to reduce its carryover funds ........................................................... 1.2 

Source: GAO. 

Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured in dollar 

terms. During fiscal year 2006, we recorded a total of 1,342 nonfinancial benefits. 

For example, we documented 61 instances where information we provided to the 
38 

Congress resulted in statutory or regulatory changes, 667 instances where federal 

agencies improved services to the public, and 614 instances where agencies improved core business processes or governmentwide reforms were advanced. These 

actions spanned the full spectrum of national issues, from identifying the adverse 

tax impact of combat pay and certain tax credits on low-income military families 

to improving the Department of State’s process for developing staffing projections 

for new embassies. See figure 3 for additional examples of GAO’s nonfinancial benefits in fiscal year 2006. 

Nonfinancial benefits that helped to change laws 

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109–171. Our work is reflected 

in this law in different ways. 

—Strengthened Medicaid program integrity. 

—Improved oversight of the States’ performance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. 

—Addressed domestic violence. 

—Improved oversight of schools that are lenders. 

Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006, Public 

Law No. 109–239. 

Nonfinancial Benefits That Helped To Improve Services to the Public 

Strengthened passport and visa issuance processes. 

Identified vulnerabilities in the process to verify personal information about 

new drivers. 

Contributed to the increased visibility of a transportation information sharing program for seniors. 

Identified a problem with untimely pay allowances to deployed soldiers. 

Nonfinancial Benefits That Helped To Promote Sound Agency and Governmentwide Management 

Improved the quality of federal voluntary voting system standards. 

Highlighted weaknesses in the Federal Aviation Administration’s control 

over computers and other assets. 

Strengthened oversight of federal personnel actions. 

Encouraged federal agencies to seek savings on purchase cards. 

Identified improper payments in DOD’s travel accounts. 

Source: GAO. 

FIGURE 3.—GAO’s Selected Nonfinancial Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 2006 

During fiscal year 2006, experts from our staff testified at 240 congressional hearings covering a wide range of complex issues (see table 4). For example, our senior 

executives testified on a variety of issues, including freight rail rates, AIDS assistance programs, and federal contracting. Over 100 of the hearings at which we testified were related to areas and programs we designated as high risk. 

TABLE 4.—GAO’s Selected Testimony Issues by Strategic Goal, Fiscal Year 2006 

Goal 1—Address Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial Security of the American People 

Health savings accounts 

Guardianships that protect incapacitated 

seniors 

Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection 

project 

Funds to first responders for 9/11 health 

problems 

Immigration enforcement at work sites 

Future air transportation system 

Nursing home care for veterans 

Passenger rail security issues 

Freight railroad rates 

AIDS drug assistance programs 

Federal Housing Administration reforms 

Improving intermodal transportation 

Hartford nuclear waste treatment plant 

Evaluations of supplemental educational 

services 

Factors affecting gasoline prices 

Telecommunication spectrum reform 

H–1B visa program 

Federal crop insurance program 

Goal 2—Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Globalization 

A comprehensive strategy to rebuild Iraq Deploying radiation detection equipment 

in other countries 
39 

Protecting military personnel from 

unscrupulous financial products 

Sensitive information at DOD and the 

Department of Energy 

Hurricane Katrina preparedness, 

response, and recovery 

Alternative mortgage products 

Global war on terrorism costs 

Transportation Security Administration’s 

Secure Flight program 

DOD’s business systems modernization 

U.S. tactical aircraft 

National Capital Region Homeland 

Security Strategic Plan 

Polar-orbiting operational environmental 

satellites 

Worldwide AIDS relief plan 

Financial stability and management of 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

Information security laws 

Procurement controls at the United Nations 

Goal 3—Help Transform the Federal Government’s Role and How It Does Business 

Contract management challenges in 

rebuilding Iraq 

DOD’s financial and business 

management transformation 

Business tax reform 

Astronaut exploration vehicle risks 

Improving federal financial management 

governmentwide 

Long-term fiscal challenges 

Federal contracting during disasters 

Improving tax compliance to reduce the 

tax gap 

Protecting the privacy of personal 

information 

DOD acquisition incentives 

Decennial Census costs 

Information security weaknesses at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Improper federal payments for 

Hurricane Katrina relief 

Strengthening the Office of Personnel 

Management’s ability to lead human 

capital reform 

Public/private recovery plan for the 

Internet 

Tax system abuses by General Services 

Administration contractors 

Compensation for federal executives and 

judges 

GAO’S FISCAL YEAR 2008 REQUEST TO SUPPORT THE CONGRESS

Our fiscal year 2008 budget request seeks the resources necessary to allow GAO 

to rebuild and enhance its workforce, knowledge capacity, employee programs, and 

infrastructure. These items are critical to ensure that GAO can continue to provide 

congressional clients with timely, objective, and reliable information on how well 

government programs and policies are working and, when needed, recommendations 

for improvement. In the years ahead, our support to the Congress will likely prove 

even more critical because of the pressures created by our Nation’s current and projected budget deficit and growing long-term fiscal imbalance. GAO is an invaluable 

tool for helping the Congress review, reprioritize, and revise existing mandatory and 

discretionary spending programs and tax policies. 

Consistent with our strategic goal to be a model agency, we continuously assess 

our operations to ensure that GAO remains an effective, high-performing organization, providing timely, critical support to the Congress while being fiscally responsive. Our objective is to be an employer of choice; maintain skills/knowledge, performance-based, and market-oriented compensation systems; adopt best practices; 

benchmark service levels and costs against comparable entities; streamline our operations to achieve efficiencies; assess opportunities for cross-servicing, outsourcing, or 

business process re-engineering; and leverage technology to increase efficiency, productivity, and results. We also continue to partner within and across the legislative 

branch through the legislative branch chief administrative officers, financial management, and procurement councils. 

Transformational change and innovation is essential for progress. Our fiscal year 

2008 budget request includes funds to regain the momentum needed to achieve 

these goals. Our fiscal year 2008 budget request will allow GAO to 

—address supply and demand imbalances in responding to congressional requests 

for studies in areas such as health care, disaster assistance, homeland security, 

the global ‘‘war on terrorism,’’ energy and natural resources, and forensic auditing; 

—address our increasing bid protest workload; 

—be more competitive in the labor markets where GAO competes for talent; 

—address critical human capital components, such as knowledge capacity building, succession planning, and staff skills and competencies; 

—enhance employee recruitment, retention, and development programs; 

—restore program funding levels and regain our purchasing power; 

—undertake critical initiatives necessary to continuously re-engineer processes 

geared to increasing our productivity and effectiveness and addressing identified management challenges; and 
40 

—pursue critical structural and infrastructure maintenance and improvements. 

Our fiscal year 2008 budget request represents an increase of $41.7 million (or 

8.5 percent) over our fiscal year 2007 funding level and includes about $523 million 

in direct appropriations and authority to use about $7.5 million in offsetting collections as illustrated in table 5. This request reflects a reduction of nearly $5.4 million 

in nonrecurring fiscal year 2007 costs used to offset the fiscal year 2008 increase. 

TABLE 5.—FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST, SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CHANGES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Budget Category FTEs Amount 

Cumulative Percentage of 

Change 

Fiscal year 2007 enacted budget authority ...................................................... 3,159 $488,627 ......................

Fiscal year 2008 requested changes ................................................................ .................... ...................... ......................

Nonrecurring fiscal year 2007 costs ........................................................ .................... (5,374 ) (1.1 ) 

Mandatory pay costs ................................................................................. .................... 19,841 3.0 

Uncontrollable cost increases ................................................................... .................... 5,079 4.0 

Rebuild our capacity ................................................................................. 58 14,826 7.0 

Critical investments in technology improvements and other transformation areas .................................................................................... .................... 7,314 8.5 

Net fiscal year 2008 increase ........................................................................... 58 41,686 8.5 

Fiscal year 2008 budget authority .................................................................... 3,217 530,313 ......................

Source: GAO. 

Mandatory pay and uncontrollable cost increases.—We are requesting $24.9 million to cover anticipated mandatory performance-based pay and uncontrollable inflationary increases resulting primarily from annual across-the-board and performance-based increases, annualization of prior fiscal year costs, and an increase in the 

number of compensable days in fiscal year 2008. These costs also include uncontrollable inflationary increases imposed by vendors as the cost of doing business. 

Rebuilding our capacity.—Our fiscal year 2007 budget request sought funds to 

support an increase of 50 FTEs from 3,217 to 3,267. However, in order to manage 

within expected funding levels in fiscal year 2007, we will significantly curtail hiring 

by about 50 percent below the previous year, resulting in a projected FTE utilization 

of 3,159—well below our planned level. In fiscal years 2007 and 2008, we anticipate 

attrition of over 600 staff that will result in a significant drain on GAO’s knowledge 

capacity or institutional memory. Further, almost 20 percent of all GAO staff will 

be eligible for retirement by the end of fiscal year 2008, including almost 45 percent 

of our senior executive service. 

Thus, in fiscal year 2008, we are seeking funds to rebuild our staff and knowledge 

capacity. In fiscal year 2008, we plan to hire about 490 staff—the maximum that 

we could reasonably absorb—increasing our FTE utilization to 3,217. While we are 

tempering our immediate FTE request, increasingly higher demands are being 

placed on GAO. We are experiencing supply and demand imbalances in several 

areas of critical importance to the Congress (e.g., health care, homeland security, 

and energy and natural resources). We have also seen an increase in the number 

of bid protest filings. 

Also, to remain competitive in the labor markets, we need to increase employee 

benefits in areas such as student loan repayments and transit subsidies where funding constraints in fiscal year 2007 limit our flexibility. For example, effective in January 2007, the IRS increased the monthly benefit for transit subsidies for eligible 

employees who commute using public transportation. GAO, however, is unable to 

extend this increased benefit to staff. 

In addition, we need to ensure that staff have the appropriate tools and resources 

to perform effectively, including training and development, travel funds, and technology. And when our staff perform well, they should be appropriately rewarded. 

Undertake critical investments.—We are requesting funds to undertake critical investments that would allow us to implement technology improvements and streamline and re-engineer work processes to enhance the productivity and effectiveness 

of our staff, conduct essential investments that have been deferred as the result of 

funding constraints and cannot continue to be deferred, and implement responses 

to changing federal conditions, such as smart card technology. Also, during recent 

years, we reduced, deferred, and slowed the pace of critical upgrades (e.g., engagement and administrative process upgrades) and deferred nonessential administrative activities. In fiscal year 2008, we would like to have sufficient funding to take 
41 

action to protect our current investments and continue to be a model agency and 

lead by example. 

Legislative authority.—We are requesting legislation to establish a board of contract appeals at GAO to adjudicate contract claims involving contracts awarded by 

legislative branch agencies. GAO has performed this function on an ad hoc basis 

over the years for appeals of claims from decisions of the Architect of the Capitol 

on contracts that it awards. Recently we have agreed to handle claims arising under 

Government Printing Office contracts. The legislative proposal would promote efficiency and predictability in the resolution of contractor and agency claims by consolidating such work in an established and experienced adjudicative component of 

GAO and would permit GAO to recover its costs of providing such adjudicative services from legislative branch users of such services. 

We also plan to request legislation that will assist GAO in performing its mission 

work and enhance our human capital policies, including addressing certain compensation and benefits issues of interest to our employees. While there are a number of important provisions, today I will only discuss several of the significant ones. 

Regarding provisions concerned with mission work, we have identified a number of 

legislative mandates that are either no longer meeting the purpose intended or 

should be performed by an entity other than GAO. We are working with the cognizant entities and the appropriate authorization and oversight committees to discuss the potential impact of legislative relief for these issues. Another provision 

would modernize the authority of the Comptroller General to administer oaths in 

performance of the work of the office. To keep the Congress apprized of difficulties 

we have interviewing agency personnel and obtaining agency views on matters related to ongoing mission work, we will suggest new reporting requirements. When 

agencies or other entities ignore a request by the Comptroller General to have personnel provide information under oath, make personnel available for interviews, or 

provide written answers to questions, the Comptroller General would report to the 

Congress as soon as practicable and also include such information in the annual report to the Congress. 

In regard to GAO’s human capital flexibilities, among other provisions, we are 

proposing a flexibility that allows us to better approximate market rates for professional positions by increasing our maximum pay for other than the senior executive 

service and senior level from GS–15, step 10, to executive level III. Additionally, 

under our revised and contemporary merit pay system, certain portions of an employee’s merit increase, below applicable market-based pay caps, are not permanent. 

Since this may impact an employee’s high three for retirement purposes, another 

key provision of the bill would enable these nonpermanent payments to be included 

in the retirement calculation for all GAO employees, except senior executives and 

senior level personnel. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In summary, I believe that you will find our budget request reasonable, responsible, and well-justified given the important role that GAO plays and the unparalleled return on investment that GAO generates. We are grateful for the Congress’s 

continued support of our mutual effort to improve government and for providing the 

resources that allow us to be a world-class professional services organization. We 

are proud of our record performance and the positive impact we have been able to 

effect in government over the past year and believe an investment in GAO will continue to yield substantial returns for the Congress and the American people. Our 

Nation will continue to face significant challenges in the years ahead. GAO’s expertise and involvement in virtually every facet of government positions us to provide 

the Congress with the timely, objective, and reliable information it needs to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. 

Mrs. Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my prepared 

statement. At this time, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or 

other members of the subcommittee may have. 

APPENDIX I: SERVING THE CONGRESS—GAO’S STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection 

in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without 

further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted 

images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary 

if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
42 
(43) 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. TURRI, ACTING PUBLIC PRINTER 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Turri. 

Mr. TURRI. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It’s clear that you have a busy schedule ahead of you today, so 

I’ll submit my full remarks for the record and make only a few 

brief comments now. 

RESULTS OF 2006

GPO had a successful year in 2006, the second full year operating under our strategic vision for the future. We increased net income, and we’re on the verge of completing GPO’s transition to a 

full-service digital information provider. We’re committed to providing a full range of digital and legacy information services to 

Congress and Federal agencies. And last year we made real 

progress toward that goal. 

With Congress’ support, we awarded the key contracts for development of our future digital system. This system provides the essential technologies that tie input of analog and digital materials 

to output in print and electronic formats. We are on schedule for 

a startup later this year. 

We began production of the e-Passport for the State Department, 

and, following their schedule, we have ramped up production to 

meet the demands of travelers in North America and the Caribbean. 

We conducted a pilot project to demonstrate our capabilities in 

digitizing Government documents, taking the opportunity to begin 

digitizing some of the Government’s considerable retrospective collection. We hope to make this a standing operation in the current 

fiscal year. 

We inaugurated the GPO Express card, which allows Government agencies to take their short run printing needs directly to 

local quick-print shops without concern that the publication produced will fail to be included in the Depository Library Program. 

I know that Senator Allard is not present today, but I am aware 

of his interest in the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA), so I’m pleased to report to you that the GPO has begun 

the process of implementing Government Performance and Results 

Act-like practices into our operations. 

Building on our strategic vision, GPO is implementing a balanced 

scorecard methodology. Not only will the balanced scorecard dovetail with our GPRA practices, but will also link our strategic goals 

with our annual performance reviews and measure our organization’s success with data and outcome. 
44 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

Fully two-thirds of the funds we are requesting for the coming 

fiscal year is for work we’re required to provide, such as producing 

and distributing a new edition of the U.S. Code, handling the estimated workload of Congress, including the Congressional Record, 

bills, calendars, and committee reports and prints, and distributing 

Government publications to the 1,200 congressionally designated libraries in the Federal Depository Library Program. 

The balance we’re requesting is to recover the shortfall we are 

projected to experience, due to the continuing resolution this year, 

and for investment in projects to continue moving the strategic vision of GPO forward. Some of the shortfall requirement can be offset with the use of approximately $5 million in unexpended prioryear funds for that purpose, with the approval of the appropriations committees. Our request for this authority will be sent to you 

soon. 

Since 2003, Congress has strongly supported our digital transformation, and the benefits have been dramatic: net income, instead of losses; increased access to digital and other information 

products, with nearly a 25-percent decrease in our workforce; and 

a strategic vision of the future that is not only attainable and sustainable, but which addresses longstanding GPO needs, corrects 

system deficiencies, and unlocks this venerable agency’s potential 

for the future. 

I’m asking that you continue to support our forward advance. 

The goal is in sight. As our record demonstrates, investment in the 

GPO results in real and measurable gains for Congress, Federal 

agencies, and the public as a whole. 

Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for your support in providing an additional $1.9 million, in the February 15 continuing resolution, to help us with mandatory pay increases and retraining. 

In accordance with past practice, we will be sending an operating 

plan to the subcommittee soon. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks, and I will be 

happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Turri. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. TURRI

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations: It is an honor to be here today to present the appropriations request of 

the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) for fiscal year 2008. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

As the Nation’s printer and disseminator of official Federal documents, GPO has 

a long and rich history as the official producer of every great American state 

paper—and an uncounted number of other Government publications—since President Lincoln’s time. Where once our products and services were confined to ink on 

paper, today we provide capabilities for the production of Federal documents in both 

electronic and conventional formats, utilizing a broad range of information technologies. 

By law, GPO is responsible for the production and distribution of information 

products and services for all three branches of the Federal Government. Many of 
45 

the Nation’s most important information products, such as the Congressional Record 

and other documents used by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, are 

produced at GPO’s main plant in Washington, DC. 

Working under a longstanding partnership with the printing industry, GPO also 

maintains a pool of private sector vendors nationwide to produce the vast range of 

publications ordered annually by Federal agencies. 

GPO’s primary responsibility for the dissemination of Federal publications traces 

its roots to an act of the 13th Congress, which provided for the distribution of congressional and other government documents on a regular basis to libraries and other 

institutions in each State for that Congress and ‘‘every future Congress.’’ This farsighted act established the antecedent for the Federal Depository Library Program, 

a program funded through GPO’s appropriations, which today serves millions of 

Americans through a network of some 1,250 public, academic, law, and other libraries located in virtually every congressional district across the Nation. 

Along with that program, we also provide public access to the wealth of official 

Federal information through public sales, through various statutory and reimbursable distribution programs, and—most prominently—by posting more than a quarter of a million Federal titles online on GPO Access (www.gpo.gov/gpoaccess), our 

award-winning Web site that is used by the public to retrieve more than 40 million 

documents free of charge every month. 

PREPARING FOR A DIGITAL FUTURE

Continuing advances in information technologies have transformed the ways that 

Congress, Federal agencies, and the public obtain and make use of government publications. As a result, printing is now secondary to our broader task of producing 

and providing access to the information products and services produced by the Federal Government, a task that today is rooted in digital rather than analog technologies. While printing remains an important information technology that continues to be required, it has become just one of a range of information product and 

service capabilities that GPO must transform itself to support in order to fulfill our 

mission requirements effectively in the digital era. 

This development was confirmed by a June 2004 report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Actions to Strengthen and Sustain GPO’s Transformation. 

The GAO recommended that GPO develop a plan to focus our mission on information dissemination as our primary goal; demonstrate to our customers the value we 

can provide; improve and extend partnerships with agencies to help establish the 

GPO as an information disseminator; and ensure that our internal operations—including technology, how we conduct business, information systems, and training— 

are adequate for the efficient and effective management of our core business functions and services. 

To that end, in December 2004 we published our strategic vision for the 21st century. This document provides a framework for how our transformation goals—including the development of a digital content system to anchor all future operations, 

reorganization of the agency into new product- and service-oriented business lines 

along with investment in the necessary technologies, adoption of management best 

practices agency-wide including retraining to provide needed skills, and the relocation and/or reconfiguration of GPO facilities—will be carried out, and since then 

GPO’s operations and programs have been conducted in accordance with it. 

RESULTS OF 2006

During the past year we made significant progress in carrying out the elements 

of our strategic vision: 

—The core of our future operations will revolve around a GPO-developed Future 

Digital System—currently called FDsys—which is being designed to organize, 

manage, and output authenticated content of authenticated Federal documents—in text, audio, and even video formats—for any purpose. In 2006 we 

awarded contracts for master integrator services and equipment acquisition, 

and this project is on track to begin operations in summer 2007. 

—GPO’s own production capabilities are focused in support of what we call the 

‘‘Official Journals of Government,’’ including the Congressional Record and Federal Register, Congress’s requirements, and security and intelligent documents. 

To improve production efficiency and broaden the range of product and service 

options for Congress and Federal agencies, we’ve invested in a variety of new 

technologies. 

—We continue to work closely with the library community to move the Federal 

Depository Library Program (FDLP) toward a predominately electronic basis as 

required by Congress, and today more than 90 percent of all new titles entering 
46 

the program are electronic. In managing this transition we have taken care to 

ensure that documents in print formats that are required at this time by some 

libraries, particularly law libraries, continue to be supplied. 

—We’re now working with our customers in Federal agencies more cooperatively, 

offering them more flexibility in choosing and working directly with vendors, especially with small value purchases and complex purchases involving multiple 

functions such as data preparation, personalization, and distribution. In 2006 

we augmented our expert printing procurement services by offering a new capability that provides Federal agencies with innovative, digitally linked convenience duplicating and printing services across the country. 

—Security and intelligent documents—including passports, Federal identification 

cards, and potentially other documents—today are an increasingly important 

business line for GPO, and could constitute as much as 50 percent of GPO’s 

business in the future. The major product of this unit is U.S. passports, and 

in 2006 we began the successful production of the new e-passport for the State 

Department. 

—We’ve established a Digital Conversion Services Branch within Customer Services to test document scanning services for the FDLP and Federal agencies. In 

2006, we began a pilot project to demonstrate our retrospective digitization capabilities and have recently completed that work. We look forward to sharing 

our results of this pilot project at your earliest convenience. 

In addition to these strategic directions, over the past 4 years we have become 

a more efficient operation, our organizational structure has been streamlined for 

faster decisionmaking, we have implemented enterprise-wide planning for our information technology systems, redundant facilities across the country have been consolidated or closed, and staffing levels have been significantly reduced utilizing early 

retirement authority authorized through Legislative Branch Appropriations Acts. 

We also initiated planning and discussions with our oversight and appropriations 

committees on the future of GPO’s current buildings on North Capitol Street in 

Washington, DC. 

Perhaps most important, our finances have been restored to a positive basis, reversing a pattern of financial losses that reached $100 million in previous years. For 

fiscal year 2006, we generated a net income of $9.8 million from operations, compared with a $6.1 million gain the year before, the third straight year of positive 

financial results. We also recorded another reduction to our long-term liability for 

the Federal workers’ compensation program, freeing additional funds for future investment. GPO is now on a solid financial footing. 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

For fiscal year 2008, we are requesting a total of $181,979,000, to enable us to: 

—Meet projected requirements for GPO’s congressional printing and binding and 

information dissemination operations during fiscal year 2008; 

—recover from the impact of restricted funding for fiscal year 2007 under the current continuing resolution; 

—complete the development of our Future Digital System project and implement 

other improvements to GPO’s information technology infrastructure; 

—perform essential maintenance and repairs to our aging buildings; and 

—continue retraining and restructuring GPO’s workforce to meet changing technology demands. 

Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation.—This account covers the cost 

of printing and other information services supporting the legislative process in the 

House of Representatives and the Senate. These services include production—in 

both print and online formats—of the daily and permanent Congressional Record, 

bills, resolutions, and amendments, hearings, committee prints and documents, miscellaneous printing and binding including stationery and document franks, and related products, as authorized by the public printing provisions of Title 44, U.S. 

Code. 

We are requesting $109,541,000 for this account, representing an increase of 

$21,587,000 over the level provided by the current continuing resolution. The increase contains two primary components: $9,251,000 to adjust this account to projected operating requirements for fiscal year 2008, and an extraordinary requirement of $12,336,000 to fund a projected shortfall for fiscal year 2007 under the current continuing resolution. 

For fiscal year 2008, we project the need for $96,460,000 to meet anticipated congressional printing and binding requirements known to typically occur in a secondsession year. The current level of funding, or $87,954,000, has remained essentially 
47 

unchanged since fiscal year 2005 in spite of increasing costs and changes in workload. 

Under the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, we anticipate incurring a significant shortfall in congressional printing and binding due to the unchanged level 

of funding since fiscal year 2005, the requirement to produce the 2006 edition of the 

U.S. Code, the need to fully fund contractual pay raises, and a projected increase 

in workload consistent with a first-session year, including an anticipated increase 

in days in session under the new congressional leadership. We will be able to meet 

these requirements without disrupting service to Congress by temporarily financing 

the shortfall through GPO’s revolving fund. As GPO has done in the past (most recently in fiscal year 2001), however, we are seeking the restoration of the shortfall 

through subsequent appropriations. 

Under our appropriations bill language, GPO has the authority—with the approval of the Committees on Appropriations—to transfer forward the unexpended 

balances of prior year appropriations. This remains an option to transfer to GPO’s 

revolving fund up to approximately $4,000,000 from the unexpended balance of the 

Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation remaining from fiscal year 2004 

and an estimated $1,000,000 remaining from fiscal year 2003. These funds could be 

used to offset part of the anticipated shortfall and if this option is exercised it would 

reduce our requirement for new funding for that purpose. 

CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Fiscal Year 2007 Approved .................................................................................................................................. 88.0 

Fiscal Year 2007 Request .................................................................................................................................... 109.5 

Change 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 21.6 

1 Change includes: Mandatory requirements and continuing operations and investment requirements. 

Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents.—The 

largest single component of this appropriation is for the Federal Depository Library 

Program (FDLP). This account also provides for the cataloging and indexing of government publications as well as the distribution of government publications to international exchange libraries and other recipients as authorized by the documents 

provisions of Title 44, U.S. Code. We are requesting $45,613,000 for this account, representing an increase of 

$12,517,000 over the level provided by the current continuing resolution. The increase is required to cover mandatory pay and price level increases, recover from 

the impact of restricted funding for fiscal year 2007 under the current continuing 

resolution, and continue improving public access to government information in electronic formats. Of the total increase, $1,885,000 is for mandatory pay and price level 

costs. 

Our requested increase provides $3,250,000 to recover the cost impacts of restricted funding under the continuing resolution, principally the requirement to distribute the 2006 edition of the U.S. Code to depository libraries and cover increased 

overhead costs—primarily for information technology services—while striving to 

maintain our responsibility to distribute information products to libraries in the formats needed by their users. 

As GPO continues to perform information dissemination through the FDLP on a 

predominately electronic basis, as mandated in the conference report accompanying 

the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, we also need to 

make continuing investments in technology infrastructure and supporting systems. 

Our requested increase provides $7,382,000 to cover projects for data migration and 

processing, FDLP program outreach, Web harvesting, data storage, authentication, 

and other modernization. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Fiscal Year 2007 Approved .................................................................................................................................. 33.1 

Fiscal Year 2008 Requested ................................................................................................................................ 45.6 

Change 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 12.5 

1 Change includes: Mandatory requirements and continuing operations and investment requirements. 
48 

Revolving Fund.—We are requesting $26,825,000 for this account, to remain 

available until expended, to fund essential investments in information technology 

infrastructure and systems development, workforce retraining and restructuring, 

and facilities maintenance and repairs. 

The key projects covered by this request include $10,500,000 to complete the development of GPO’s Future Digital System, which is scheduled to go live later this 

year; $9,375,000 to cover the replacement of GPO’s 30-year old automated composition system, upgrade our Oracle enterprise business systems, and implement other 

improvements to our information technology infrastructure; $3,000,000 to continue 

our program for workforce retraining and restructuring; and $3,950,000 for maintenance and repairs to GPO’s aging buildings. 

REVOLVING FUND 

[In millions of dollars] 

Amount 

Fiscal Year 2007 Approved .................................................................................................................................. 1.0 

Fiscal Year 2007 Request .................................................................................................................................... 26.8 

Change 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 25.8 

1 Change includes: Mandatory requirements and continuing operations and investment requirements. 

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, with your support we can continue GPO’s record of achievement. We look forward to working with you in your 

review and consideration of our request. 
(49) 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG, DIRECTOR 

Senator LANDRIEU. Peter. 

Dr. ORSZAG. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

As you know, CBO provides the Congress with timely, nonpartisan, and objective information about budget and economic 

issues. And I just want to note that I assumed my position in January, and look forward to working with you and your colleagues 

throughout the rest of my 4-year term. 

CBO’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 totals $38 million, 

which is a $2.8 million, or 7.9 percent, increase over our fiscal year 

2007 funding level. After taking into account increases in prices 

and costs, the budget restores CBO to its fiscal year 2006 operating 

level. 

As you may know, our budget is overwhelmingly for people. 

Ninety-one percent of CBO’s appropriation is devoted to personnel 

costs, and the bulk of our requested increase, $2.1 million, is devoted to staff salaries and benefits. 

On that note, I would point out that our staff is overwhelmingly 

very highly skilled. More than three-quarters of our professional 

and management staff have a Ph.D. or master’s degree, and obviously the market for those kinds of personnel has become increasingly competitive, which puts pressure on agencies like CBO. 

The remaining 9 percent of our budget is devoted to IT equipment, supplies, and small purchases of other items and services. 

The funding for CBO’s IT resources increases by a little under 

$500,000. The reason is the rapid increase in IT costs necessary to 

fulfill our various requirements. That IT funding would restore 

CBO’s fiscal year—restore IT funding to CBO’s fiscal year 2006 operating level. 

HEALTHCARE

I would also like to mention that various members and subcommittee chairmen of the House and Senate have asked CBO to 

expand our ability to assist the Congress in identifying and analyzing potential ways to address projected growth in healthcare 

spending. This is perhaps the central long-term fiscal challenge facing the Federal Government, and there is no other agency that is 

providing options on what could bend the curve on healthcare 

spending over the long term. Given the central importance of this 

issue to the budget, and given the potential role that CBO could 

play in providing such options, I support the initiative to expand 

CBO’s work in this area, and we have put together staffing and 

other resources request that would allow us to better meet the 

needs of the Congress in this area. Totaling a little over $500,000, 

it includes funding for an additional health position, visiting fellow, 
50 

consulting support, and the purchase of data that would allow us 

to undertake more analysis. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 

CBO’s mission is to provide the Congress with timely, objective, nonpartisan analyses of the budget and the economy and to furnish the information and cost estimates required for the congressional budget process. That mission is its single ‘‘program.’’ Approximately 91 percent of CBO’s appropriation is devoted to personnel, 

and the remaining 9 percent to information technology (IT), equipment, supplies, 

and small purchases of other items. 

CBO’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 totals $37,972,000, a $2.8 million or 

7.9 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 funding level. After taking into account increases in prices and costs, this budget request restores CBO to its fiscal 

year 2006 operating level. (The continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007 provided 

funding at less than the 2006 current services level for the agency.) 

The requested increase is largely accounted for by $2.1 million for increases in 

staff salaries and benefits, which are estimated to grow by 6.3 percent in 2008. 

In the request, funding for CBO’s IT resources increases by almost 40 percent, or 

$458,200. The reason is the rapid increase in IT costs necessary to fulfill CBO’s IT 

requirements; the request does not entail any significant increase in those requirements. In other words, the increase restores IT funding to CBO’s fiscal year 2006 

operating level. 

The remainder of CBO’s nonpersonnel budget will increase by 18 percent, or 

$258,400, which restores funding to normal levels for CBO’s share of support for the 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), as well as providing for expert consultants, subscription services, printing, miscellaneous support by contractors, and travel and training requirements. 

CBO assists the Congress in exercising its responsibilities for the budget of the 

U.S. government and other legislation. Under the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, 

the primary duty of CBO is to support the committees on the Budget of both 

Houses. Further, the agency supports the congressional budget process by providing 

analyses requested by the committees on the Budget; the committees on Appropriations; the committee on Ways and Means; the committee on Finance; other committees; and, to the extent that resources permit, individual members. Contributing in 

various forms, CBO: 

—Reports on the outlook for the budget and the economy to help the Congress 

prepare for the legislative year; 

—constructs baseline budget projections to serve as neutral benchmarks for gauging the effects of spending and revenue proposals; 

—assists the committees on the Budget in developing the congressional budget 

resolution by providing alternative spending and revenue paths and the estimated effects of a variety of policy options; 

—analyzes the likely direct effects that the President’s budgetary proposals will 

have on outlays and revenues; their economic implications, and any budgetary 

feedback; 

—provides estimates of the cost of all appropriation bills at each stage of the legislative process, including estimates for numerous amendments considered during 

that annual process; 

—reports on all programs and activities for which authorizations for appropriations were not enacted or are scheduled to expire; 

—estimates the cost of many legislative proposals, including formal cost estimates 

for all bills reported by committees of the House and Senate and detailed explanations of the components of cost estimates and the estimating methodologies 

used; 

—estimates the cost of intergovernmental and private-sector mandates in reported 

bills and other legislative proposals; 

—conducts policy studies of governmental activities having major economic and 

budgetary impacts; 

—provides testimonies on a broad range of budget and economic issues addressing 

the agency’s own budget projections as well as specific issues related to national 
51 

security, health care policy, alternative means of financing infrastructure spending, and numerous other program areas; 

—helps the Congress make budgetary choices by providing policy options, but not 

policy recommendations, for how it might alter federal outlays and receipts in 

the near term and over the longer term; and 

—constructs statistical, behavioral, and computational models to project shortand long-term costs and revenues of government programs. 

In fiscal year 2008, CBO’s request will allow the agency to build on current efforts. Specifically, the request: 

—Supports a heavy workload of formal and informal estimates of the costs of proposed or enacted legislation and of mandates included in legislation, analytical 

reports, other publications and updates, and congressional testimony; 

—supports 235 FTEs (full-time-equivalent positions), including an across-theboard pay adjustment of 3 percent for staff earning a salary of $100,000 or less, 

which is consistent with the pay adjustment requested by other legislative 

branch agencies; 

—funds a projected 5.2 percent increase in the cost of benefits and funds a combination of promotions and merit increases for staff; 

—funds CBO’s share ($460,575) of FASAB’s budget requirement; 

—provides expert consultant and subscription services necessary to fulfilling 

CBO’s mission ($340,100); 

—provides management and professional training at the funding level in fiscal 

year 2006 ($125,000); 

—provides travel funding at the fiscal year 2006 funding level ($140,000); 

—supports the current level of maintenance and restores software development 

funding for CBO’s financial management system to the 2006 funding level 

($102,800); 

—improves disaster recovery capabilities at the Alternate Computing Facility 

($70,000); 

—allows for acquiring commercial data necessary for CBO’s analyses and studies 

($193,000); 

—maintains essential operations for desktop software ($83,000); and 

—provides for replacing obsolete desktop computers and network servers 

($130,000). 

CBO has been asked by various members and committee chairmen of the House 

and Senate to expand its ability to assist the Congress in identifying and analyzing 

potential ways to address projected growth in health care spending. Continued rapid 

growth in such spending poses a major long-term threat to the Nation’s fiscal stability. Responding to that request, CBO has identified staffing and other resources 

that would enable the agency to better meet the needs of the Congress in this area. 

Some additional funding would be necessary to augment CBO’s fiscal year 2008 

budget request. Totaling $538,400, it includes funding for an additional health position, visiting fellow, consulting support, and the purchase of prescription drug and 

health insurance data, as well as minor funding for related IT, office space reconfiguration, travel, and training. CBO hopes that the subcommittee will consider adding 

funding to CBO’s fiscal year 2008 budget request to cover this additional requirement. 

Before I close, I would like to report that CBO received its third consecutive clean 

opinion on the latest audit of its financial statements. The agency’s fourth audit (of 

fiscal year 2006 financial statements) is ongoing. 

The agency is committed to applying the principles of the Government Performance Results Act, as discussed in the Senate’s fiscal year 2006 report. This past 

year, the agency developed its first formal strategic plan and performance plan. On 

the basis of those documents, CBO will prepare its first performance accountability 

report, using fiscal year 2007 as the baseline. 

Finally, I would like to thank the committee for the funding provided this year, 

including the allowance for a cost-of-living adjustment that supplemented the agency’s payroll under the continuing resolution. 
(52) 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

PETER A. EVELETH, GENERAL COUNSEL 

BARBARA CAMENS, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Senator LANDRIEU. Ms. Chrisler. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. I’m 

honored to appear before this subcommittee today as the Acting 

Executive Director of the Office of Compliance (OOC). 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE STRATEGIC PLAN GUIDES BUDGET REQUEST

Our fiscal year 2008 budget request is guided by our newly developed strategic plan, which focuses on collaboration and communication and increasing our efforts at being a resource to the legislative branch. 

The first goal of our strategic plan involves our safety and health 

program, and it’s through that program that our Office has been 

heavily engaged in collaborative and communication efforts with 

the Office of Architect of the Capitol, in negotiating a mutually acceptable resolution to the complaint that was filed in the utility 

tunnels case. 

It is anticipated that this resolution will involve a written settlement agreement, whereby the abatement plan for the hazards in 

the utility tunnels is outlined. We’re requesting your assistance, 

and the assistance of the subcommittee today, to fund $280,000 approximate for our efforts in meeting our obligations under the settlement agreement; $120,000 to secure the services of a safety and 

health expert to act as a liaison between our Office and the Office 

of the AOC’s liaison, to ensure that the terms of the agreement are 

met. We’re also seeking an additional $152,000 to secure the expert 

services of consultants in heat issues and egress issues, asbestos, 

and mold issues. We currently have, on staff, contractors who are 

experts in some of these areas, but these contractors’ time and attention are devoted to other matters, and, in order to meet our obligation under the settlement agreement, we’re requesting your support. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE AS RESOURCE TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

In developing our strategic plan, our office thought, and considered, how we can be of help to the legislative branch, how we can 

be a resource in ensuring that work environments are safe and 

healthy environments from the beginning, before conditions become 

hazardous. We recognize that it’s education, and it’s knowledge, 

and it’s preventive measures that are key. To this end, we would 

like to work with Member offices, we would like to work with employing offices, and review their safety and health plans, and 
53 

evaluate their safety and health programs. We’d like to work with 

Congress to develop safety checklists for State offices, so staff there 

know how to recognize conditions before they become hazardous. 

It’s preventive, it’s proactive, and it’s a cost-efficient way of providing services. 

Now, we know we can’t act as a resource in a bubble. We can’t 

sit in our Office and make determinations as to how to provide assistance to the covered community. We know that it takes collaboration with stakeholders so that we—our efforts are targeted to the 

areas where our efforts are needed. We know that it takes communication with safety and health officers and managers so that our 

office understands the particular needs of certain offices. We know 

that it takes financial resources. And that’s why we’re here today, 

to ask for your support in this endeavor. 

MONITORING ABATEMENT OF MOST SERIOUS HAZARDS

Last year, I had the privilege of testifying before this subcommittee in support of the fiscal year 2007 budget request of the 

Office. In asking our general counsel about abatement of specific 

identified hazards, Senator Allard shared with us his experience, 

his prior experience, as an inspector. And the Senator focused on 

the importance of follow-up in monitoring abatement. And we 

heard the Senator, and we took those comments very seriously. We 

recognize that the fundamental success of any safety and health inspection program requires the ability to facilitate abatement of 

identified hazards. And a major factor of that facilitation is follow 

up. It’s ensuring that steps were taken, and it’s making sure everything that was supposed to be done has been done. Our Office has 

never had the funding or the staffing to monitor abatement as it 

should. 

With the large number of violations that were found in the 109th 

Congress alone, we know that it’s going to take a dedicated position 

to monitor the abatement of the identified hazards in the 109th 

Congress and the other existing hazards. And we’re asking your 

support in funding an additional position for our Office. That would 

be a compliance officer, who would be dedicated to monitoring the 

abatement of identified hazards, who would be responsible for that 

follow up and ensuring that everything that’s supposed to be done 

has been done. 

ADDITIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS

Our Office is requesting three additional—outside of the compliance officer—three additional full-time equivalent positions, as 

well, two of which were requested in fiscal year 2007 budget request; those two being the accounts payable position, which would 

bring on staff our accounts payable function and allow for separation of duties, as well as a management analyst, who would assist 

in monitoring the projects that our Office is involved in, so that our 

program managers can focus on managing their programs. 

The fourth position that we’re requesting is an administrative position that would be shared between the half-time receptionist that 

we currently have, bringing that position to full time, and the administrative support of the safety and health program that we anticipate—that we anticipate with the increased workload. 
54 

Madam Chair, our office is energized about our new strategic 

plan, and we are very excited about further servicing the legislative 

branch as a resource. We want to be a part of the preventative 

measures, and we want to be a part of collaborative efforts, and we 

want to be a part of the solution. 

Joining me today is a member of our board of directors, Barbara 

Camens, and, if time permits, I would ask that she be allowed to 

make a brief statement, as well. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay, that may be possible, and thank you 

for your testimony. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 2008 budget request of the Office of Compliance. 

Board member Barbara Camens is in attendance with me today to express the 

support of the board of directors for the Office’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

Also with me today are General Counsel Peter Ames Eveleth, Deputy Executive Director Alma Candelaria, and Administrative and Budget Officer Beth Hughes 

Brown. 

As we have in the past, we present our budget request as a completely zero based 

budget, in an effort to provide transparency of the office’s operations, and to assist 

the committee in understanding from the ground up how the office operates its mandated programs in employment dispute resolution, in occupational safety and health 

and ADA public access inspections and enforcement, and in education and outreach 

programs. This year, we have requested a total of $4,106,000 for fiscal year 2008 

operations. A large portion of this request, $280,200 (28 percent of the requested 

increase), is attributed to the required abatement monitoring of the utility tunnels 

case. 

The Office of Compliance (OOC or Office) approaches fiscal year 2008 with a new 

strategic plan. Although our plan was implemented at the beginning of fiscal year 

2007, 2008 will be the first fiscal year in which the Office has requested funding 

in support of this plan. Prior to the end of our first 3-year strategic plan in fiscal 

year 2006, the Office began preparation for the drafting of our current plan. We incorporated input from our entire staff, outlining our major goal of focusing on meeting the workplace needs of the legislative branch, and positioning ourselves to act 

as a resource to the covered community. Shortly after the beginning of fiscal year 

2007, the Office finalized a plan which covers fiscal years 2007–2009, with focused 

efforts on communication and collaboration with agencies and employing offices, and 

providing technical guidance as needed. As we strive to meet the goals and performance measures of our current strategic plan, we face new operational challenges of 

funding and staffing. We request your assistance in overcoming these challenges. 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Congressional Accountability Act’s (CAA) statutory mandate requires that our 

office conduct a workplace safety and health inspection program. The monitoring of 

remediation of hazards found through the Office’s inspection program remains a 

vital part of the safety and health program. During fiscal year 2006, the General 

Counsel increased his efforts to remedy two serious violations which posed imminent danger to workers, one of which was unabated safety violations which existed 

in the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels since before 1999. The Office’s filing of 

our first ever formal complaint led the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) 

to implement immediate interim abatement measures to protect workers in the tunnels from imminent harm. 

With that protection in place, the AOC and the Office engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the formal complaint by devising a plan which requires abatement of the identified hazards, continued interim protection for affected AOC employees until full abatement is achieved, and monitoring of the abatement progress 

by the Office of Compliance. In order to ensure the safety and health of workers, 
55 

this monitoring may require the procurement of expertise that the Office does not 

have available on staff. The current staff complement of the OOC has been 

stretched in both FTE resources and contractor funding, and we currently do not 

have available the expertise to address many of the specifics involved in the abatement of the tunnels hazards. Our fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $120,000 

for funding to cover the costs of an OOC liaison (a safety and health expert) who 

will help us continuously interface with the AOC’s liaison to facilitate abatement 

pursuant to the tunnels settlement agreement. An additional $152,000 is requested 

so that our office may obtain the expertise of other expert consultants who can address structural, heat, egress, mold, and asbestos issues. 

The monitoring of the utility tunnels as well as the monitoring of the nearly 

13,000 findings our inspectors detected in our 109th Congress biennial inspection 

will require substantial time and resources. Our multi-year plan considers this time 

and resource requirement and will allow for comprehensive abatement. One portion 

of our plan to monitor abatement of the approximate 13,000 findings is the acceleration and increase of our follow-up inspections of the most critical of those findings. 

With the number of findings before us, we recognize—and the fiscal year 2006 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman reminded us—that it is essential that 

the Office incorporate mechanisms and personnel to better assure efficiency and 

timeliness in its monitoring program. As such, the need for a compliance officer, 

who would be dedicated to monitoring the abatement schedules of employing offices 

and ensure that employing offices have taken appropriate steps towards resolution 

of identified hazards and violations, is most critical. We request one FTE to serve 

as a compliance officer, to provide consistent monitoring of abatement of hazards, 

assure timely abatement of OSH hazards identified in the OSH biennial inspections 

and requestor-initiated inspections, and ensure compliance with OSH-related citations. 

In our fiscal year 2007 budget request, the Office explained its need for a management analyst to perform the administrative tasks that our inspectors once performed at a much higher cost. This need became so apparent that, while we awaited 

congressional consideration of our request, the Office engaged in a reorganization. 

Sacrificing the support of administrative staff, we reorganized positions and reprogrammed contractor funds to allow the duties of the management analyst to be performed immediately. As a result of the reorganization, inspector efficiency has increased; however, the Office still suffers from a lack of clerical/administrative support. We are requesting funding to add a 0.5 FTE position to ensure that the attorneys and inspectors are able to focus on the substantive nature of their work, as 

opposed to performing accompanying administrative tasks. The function of the remaining half of this position is addressed below. 

The large number of findings in our 109th biennial inspections contemplates the 

notion that there may exist deficiencies in the safety and health plans and programs 

of the legislative branch. In an effort to be a resource to our covered community, 

the Office seeks to provide technical assistance to member offices as well as employing offices. As mentioned in our strategic plan, the Office is prepared to review and 

analyze the covered community’s safety plans to determine whether the plans meet 

OSHA requirements. We are requesting funds in support of this initiative with the 

hope that our early technical assistance might prevent the occurrence of future hazards. 

Similarly, the Office is committed to providing early assistance to State offices as 

well. The lack of funding has prevented the Office from conducting in-person inspections of covered facilities in State offices, as mandated by the CAA. However, we 

are developing a plan by which we can assist Congress in assuring worker safety 

in State offices. Through collaboration with stakeholders, we plan to develop and 

pilot self-certification check lists to provide to State offices in an effort to educate 

them on OSHA requirements, and to better equip them in assuring that the responsible party (e.g., GSA, private landlords) corrects any identified hazards. 

In addition, the anticipated opening of the Capitol Visitor Center during fiscal 

year 2008 has impacted our office as well. The Office stands ready to provide preliminary assistance in assessing the safety of the CVC prior to its occupancy. Once 

the CVC is occupied and it is added to the Office’s inspection cycle, it will add approximately .7 million square feet to the Office’s area of inspection. Thus, we are 

seeking funding to sustain the increased workload. 

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

The Office is mandated by Congress to ‘‘carry out a program of education for 

members of Congress and other employing authorities of the legislative branch of 

the Federal Government respecting the laws made applicable to them and a pro-
56 

gram to inform individuals of their rights under laws made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal Government. . . .’’ 2 U.S.C. 1381(h)(1). The Office continues to carry out this core mandate of the act through various educational and 

outreach activities. 

In line with the Office’s initiative to act as a resource to legislative branch employees and employers, the Office has begun major efforts to disseminate a baseline 

survey to its constituents. We have devised a survey instrument to apply initially 

to House and Senate offices, with the intent of applying the same instrument to another large group of our constituents in the current fiscal year. The survey has been 

designed to gauge the community’s general knowledge of the Office, their rights and 

responsibilities under the CAA, and their general satisfaction with the Office. This 

initiative ultimately will result in the first comprehensive evaluation of the Office’s 

education efforts and services. The Office anticipates that this initial survey, followed by focus groups and additional surveys, will result in feedback and pointed 

data to allow the Office to perform a concentrated effort to improve and streamline 

and more precisely target services to fit the needs of the community. With your assistance, we have been able to fund phases I and II in the past 2 fiscal years. We 

are seeking additional funding for phase III of our survey activities to establish the 

baseline against which we will measure our success in achieving our educational 

statutory mandate. 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Office’s employment dispute resolution program provides a mechanism for 

employing offices and employees to address issues involving ten different laws of the 

CAA, ranging from alleged discrimination to the alleged failure to pay required 

overtime. The successes of the dispute resolution program remain largely unnoticed 

because of the confidential nature of its administrative phases: counseling, mediation, and hearing processes conducted by the Office. Hundreds of disputes in nearly 

all legislative branch agencies, as well as in offices of members and committees of 

both chambers have quietly been addressed through our administrative dispute resolution system since the Office’s inception in 1996. The assistance to employing offices and employees provided by this confidential service is reinforced through welltrained staff who provide exemplary services to employees and through the expertise of contract mediators and hearing officers who remain accomplished in their 

field. 

The need for contracted legal expertise is anticipated to continue in fiscal year 

2008. Currently, the Office has received a large number of complaints which have 

proceeded to hearing and may proceed to the administrative appellate stage before 

the Office’s board of directors. During the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, there 

were pending before the board five cases for appellate review. The preparation of 

these decisions, to include legal research, legal writing, and legal analysis, requires 

expert assistance in order to render sound board decisions in a timely fashion. The 

Office currently has staff dedicated to this program requirement; however, because 

complaints continue to be filed at a steady pace, and because the Office does not 

foresee a decrease in the number of appeals of hearing officers’ decisions, assistance 

from a contract attorney will aid the office in providing timely board decisions. 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

As mentioned above, the Office of Compliance makes extensive use of service vendors and personal services contractors to provide many of our vital functions, including employment dispute resolution and OSH inspections. In general, this practice 

provides significant cost savings and allows this small agency to maintain capacities 

on an ‘‘as-needed’’ basis. However, some core internal control functions are currently 

also under-served or contracted out due to our limited FTE authorization, which at 

17 is two less than the agency was authorized in fiscal year 1998. 

The Office has just two FTE’s dedicated to all IT, HR, general administrative support and fiscal management functions. This situation has resulted in inefficiencies, 

work load overages, and the necessity to contract out core functions, such as accounts payable. Accounting staff is necessary to ensure that a separation of functions can be maintained in our fiscal management. HR/project management staff is 

necessary to further the Office’s commitment to best practices, allowing program 

managers to concentrate on their areas of expertise. General administrative staff is 

necessary to address workload issues of staff who have to perform administrative 

duties instead of duties in their own subject matter areas. As mentioned in our fiscal year 2007 budget request, we are requesting one analyst FTE to address our HR 

and project management deficit, and an accounting technician FTE to bring our 

basic accounting and other fiscal responsibilities on staff. The cost of these FTE’s 
57 

will be partially offset by a reduction in contractor expenses. In addition, we are requesting a half-time FTE to complete the part-time receptionist position, so that our 

remaining staff can concentrate on performing the duties of their respective substantive areas. 

CONCLUSION

There are a number of other requests in our budget submission which we commend for your consideration. The ones referenced herein are presented to highlight 

a portion of the endeavors which our office hopes to undertake with your assistance. 

On behalf of the board of directors, the appointees and the entire staff of the Office 

of Compliance, I thank you for the committee’s support of the efforts of this agency. 

I assure you that the Office is committed to the most efficient and prudent use of 

taxpayer money. I respectfully request that the committee respond favorably to the 

Office’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. We will be happy to respond to any questions which you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA CAMENS

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am Barbara 

Camens, and I represent the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance. I am 

honored to be here today to join Acting Executive Director Tamara Chrisler in testifying on behalf of the Office’s fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

Madam Chair, the Board would first like to commend the work of Ms. Chrisler, 

Peter Eveleth, and the entire staff in achieving so many goals in the past few years. 

We now have a new strategic plan for fiscal year 2007–2009, with a line of sight 

to individual work plans. We have established and continue to develop protocols to 

enable us better to partner with the agencies for which we have employment law 

and safety and health jurisdiction. We are negotiating a settlement agreement of 

our first safety and health complaint, involving the utility tunnels which, if approved, will prevent the matter from reaching federal court, will conserve substantial resources, and will ensure the immediate and ongoing abatement of the underlying safety hazards. 

This record of improvement is the result of the hard work and dedication of the 

four statutory officers who are appointed by the Board, and the dedicated staff they 

have assembled. While the Board wholeheartedly supports the entire budget request, we wish to underscore the need which the agency has to increase its FTE 

complement to 21. Right now the FTE complement of 17 is two less than the 19 

the Office was afforded in fiscal year 1998. Over the past several years, the agency 

has concentrated its available resources on enhancing its service delivery, particularly in the OSH area. Consequently, there is a compelling need for basic operational support staff. I can assure you that the Office of Compliance will continue 

to make the most efficient use of every dollar which is appropriated by this committee. 

I would like to call your attention to two statutory changes that are of significant 

interest to Susan Robfogel, the Chair of the Board of Directors, as well as the entire 

Board. The first has to do with internal promotion within the Office of Compliance. 

The Congressional Accountability Act requires the Office’s statutory appointees to 

be individuals who have not worked within the legislative branch during the previous 4 years. This provision makes it impossible to promote from within; for example, from Deputy Executive Director to Executive Director. Since the Board could 

be actively contemplating such a promotion, we have an immediate interest in 

changing the prohibitive section of the CAA. We have contacted, and plan to work 

with the appropriate oversight committees of both Chambers to expedite this 

change, and would greatly appreciate the support of this subcommittee in this effort. 

In addition, the Office has recently contracted with a human resources consulting 

firm that has begun assessing our human capital needs. The contractor’s report 

makes recommendations for how various office functions could be more efficiently 

and effectively performed. One of the contractor’s preliminary recommendations is 

for ‘‘the Board of Directors (to) consider the feasibility of seeking legislative change 

to allow the establishment of senior executive positions in the Office of Compliance 

where these responsibilities warrant.’’ We are requesting your assistance in enacting 

this change for the positions of Executive Director and General Counsel of the Office 

of Compliance, and if you consider it appropriate for each of the five members of 

the Board of Directors. Please provide us any guidance you deem advisable to effect 

this change in compensation levels. 

I am available to address any questions. 
58 

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me just begin with questions, if I could, 

to Mr. Walker. Let me say that, although my experience on this 

subcommittee is rather brief, my experience in Government is not, 

and I’ve been in public office for, now, almost 30 years, having 

started in my own legislature, and then working up as State treasurer, and then, of course, being 10 years in the Senate. I realize, 

while there are a lot of people who spend a lot of time bashing Government, I believe Government can do a lot of good, does a lot of 

good every day. I am proud of the fact that this is the finest Government, democracy, in the world. It’s what many of the issues 

that we’re dealing with here and abroad are all about. And, while 

some of your agencies don’t get the time and attention they need, 

because they’re sort of the mechanical part of making it work, it 

does not go without my notice of the importance of what you do 

every day to just keep the trains running on time and to keep this 

Government operating efficiently, transparently, and professionally, which is so rare in the world today. 

So, I would think, particularly for the Comptroller’s office and 

the Congressional Budget Office, Peter, that you all really are the 

muscle that makes possible a trim and fit Government, and we 

want to run a trim and fit Government to meet all the goals and 

objectives, from the Constitution to every law that’s written, to fulfill the dreams and hopes of the country. So, I hope that people in 

the room understand that this is not just a mechanical accounting 

exercise for me. I really look forward to learning more about your 

offices. My background is not in auditing or investigation. But I 

would say that I really am a true believer in Government working 

well. And—as much as I can help you do your jobs well—I think 

our subcommittee will be making a significant contribution. 

JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASED FUNDING IN THE GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Walker, Some in Congress are going to be quite suspect and 

hesitant—as you know, about fighting for extra money. It is not 

going to be easy—— 

Mr. WALKER. No, I realize that. 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Currently, we’ve got a tremendous amount of extremely important calls on funding, both domestically and internationally. So, would you spend another minute or 

two, giving your three or four best arguments to the skeptics that 

say, ‘‘What you do is not that important, and we don’t need to increase your budget.’’ Seeing this graph that you submitted sort of 

tells the story. But if you’d add something to that. 

Mr. WALKER. I’ll be happy to provide something for the record. 

And thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair. 

[The information follows:] 

NEED FOR INCREASED FUNDING

In recent years, GAO has worked cooperatively with the Appropriations Committees to submit modest budget requests. Adjusting for inflation, GAO’s budget authority has declined by 3 percent in constant fiscal year 2006 dollars since fiscal 

year 2003. These modest budget results do not adequately recognize the return on 

investment that GAO has been able to generate. In fact, these modest increases 

have hampered our progress in rebuilding from the downsizing (40 percent reduction in staffing levels) and mandated funding reductions that occurred in the 1990s. 
59 

With your support, GAO has become more results-oriented, partnerial, and client 

focused. We have made strategic investments; realigned the organization; streamlined our business processes; modernized our performance classification, compensation, and reward systems; enhanced our ability to attract, retain and reward top talent; enhanced the technology and infrastructure supporting our staff and systems; 

and made other key investments. These transformational efforts have allowed GAO 

to model best practices, lead by example, and provide significant support to Congressional hearings, while achieving record results and very high client satisfaction ratings without significant increases in funding. 

We have taken a number of steps to deal with funding shortfalls in the past few 

years; however, we cannot continue to employ the same approaches. Our staff has 

become increasingly stretched and we are experiencing backlogs in several areas of 

critical importance to the Congress (e.g., health care, homeland security, energy and 

natural resources). In addition, we have deferred key initiatives and technology upgrades (e.g., engagement and administrative process upgrades) for several years and 

it would not be prudent to continue to do so. These actions are having an adverse 

effect on employee morale, our ability to produce results, and the return on investment that we can generate. 

There is a need for fundamental and dramatic reform to address what the government does, how it does business, and who will do the government’s business. Our 

support to the Congress will likely prove even more critical because of the pressures 

created by our nation’s current and projected budget deficit and growing long-term 

fiscal imbalance. Also, as we face current and projected supply and demand imbalance issues and a growing workload over the coming years across a wide spectrum 

of issues, GAO will be unable to respond to congressional demands without a significant investment in our future. We have exhausted the results that we can achieve 

based on prior investments. Our ability to continue to produce record results and 

assist the Congress in discharging its Constitutional responsibilities relating to authorization, appropriations, oversight, and other matters will be adversely impacted 

unless we take action now. 

LINKING RESOURCES TO RESULTS

Mr. WALKER. We’re in the business of improving the performance 

of the Federal Government and ensuring its accountability for the 

benefit of the American people. We provide oversight, insight, and 

foresight work. We help the Congress discharge its constitutional 

responsibilities with regard to appropriations, authorization, reauthorization, oversight, et cetera. 

The best case I would give you, Madam Chair, is, I think the 

U.S. Government does not do a very good job of linking resources 

to results. We are a shining exception to that general rule. We generated, last year, a $105 return in financial benefits for every dollar invested in our agency. Number two in the world is around 24 

to 1. The Congress needs to do a better job, in my view, of recognizing that the baselines of all budgets are not equal. I’m talking 

in general, not about the legislative branch, but throughout Government. The Government needs to start doing a better job of analyzing what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense for tomorrow, and are we targeting our resources to where we’re getting results. 

If the Congress does that, our case is clear and compelling, and 

I have no concerns. But if the Congress doesn’t do that, and if the 

Congress takes a baseline approach to say, ‘‘Well, this is where we 

were last year, and this is how much money we have this year,’’ 

and, if it doesn’t delve in, get the facts, and differentiate, then I’m 

very concerned, because what happens is, agencies like ours, who 

try to ask for very modest budget requests, and to lead by example—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Get penalized. 
60 

Mr. WALKER [continuing]. Get penalized. There are very perverse 

incentives in that. I know you believe, as I do, that we need to 

transform what Government does and how Government does business. We are an ally to this Congress in getting that done. But we 

need to have a reasonable level of resources in order to be able to 

do our job. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

HIRING IN A COMPETITIVE JOB MARKET

Let me just ask you to comment about the tensions that you’re 

finding, or the difficulties, in hiring based on the competitiveness 

of the private market. I’m going to ask you the same, Mr. Turri, 

and also Peter. Because the region that we’re in here is very competitive. Are you seeing it scale up pretty substantially, or has it 

been this way for several years? 

Mr. WALKER. It varies, Madam Chair. Basically, for GAO, we’re 

deemed to be an employer of choice. We’re deemed to be one of the 

best places to work in the Federal Government. We’re deemed to 

be a preferred professional services organization. So, in general, we 

have a lot more people who want to work for GAO than we have 

positions. There are, however, exceptions. We experience real supply and demand imbalances in hiring Ph.D. economists, healthcare 

professionals, and information technology professionals. Even in 

areas such as financial management and auditing, because of Sarbanes-Oxley and a variety of other issues, there are selected areas 

in which we are increasingly competing for talent and having difficulties in being able to attract the number of people with the type 

of education and experience that we want. But, in general, we’re 

okay. Those areas where we have challenges, but we need to meet 

those challenges, because some of these areas are the ones that 

represent the greatest challenges for Government—healthcare, for 

example. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And do you think you have the flexibility, 

based on the current authorization laws, to allow you to make 

those differentials in pay that are required to attract and retain 

that kind of talent? 

Mr. WALKER. We have more flexibility than most agencies in 

Government, thanks to the actions of the Congress. On three different occasions—1980, 2001, and 2003—the Congress has given us 

initial authorities, which we have aggressively used. I can assure 

you that I will not hesitate to let you know if we think we need 

more authorities. I would like to note for the record, as is included 

in my statement, we are planning to submit a legislative proposal 

to our oversight and authorizing committees, this year, that does 

deal with certain human capital issues. 

MARKET-BASED COMPENSATION AT THE GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Senator LANDRIEU. As I understand, there was a hearing in the 

House on this, last week, that had a couple of questions about complaints that they had received about people feeling that they might 

not have been treated fairly. And, of course, I wasn’t able to read 

all the testimony of that hearing. Would you like to comment, for 

the record—— 
61 

Mr. WALKER. Sure. 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. About some of those—— 

Mr. WALKER. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Issues? 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity. Let 

me try to provide some contextual sophistication for this, because 

you just get pieces of things that are reported. 

In July 2003, I testified before the Congress, and I asked for additional legislative authorities in order to make GAO a more market-based, skills-, knowledge-, and performance-oriented organization with regard to classification and compensation systems. Congress granted us that authority in July 2004. 

Later in 2004, we received the results of our first-ever competitive compensation study for GAO personnel. It was good news and 

bad news. The good news was, the vast majority of our people were 

either compensated fairly, or for a material percentage of individuals—Ph.D. economists, attorneys, information technology specialists, and a few others—the study found that we should raise their 

pay potential, raise their pay ranges; and, in fact, we did do that. 

There were many more positives than negatives. There was, however, one area that it was not good news for some of our employees. 

That study said that we had roughly 300 employees that were overpaid, as compared to the market. As a result, one had to decide, 

‘‘What would you do with those individuals?’’ 

I made the determination that, while I had the authority to 

freeze their pay under the law, I didn’t want to do that; I wanted 

to give them some performance incentives. And, in fact, we did, and 

we are still giving them performance incentives, even greater performance incentives. But I made the decision not to provide them 

an automatic across-the-board pay increase, because, in my view, 

doing so would be inconsistent with the concept of equal pay for 

work of equal value, and inconsistent with the concept of providing 

competitive compensation levels for our people. Candidly, I never 

promised to give across-the-board increases to people paid above 

market, nor have I ever been asked to promise to give across-theboard increases to people paid above market. To put this in context, in 2007 we’re talking about roughly 150 people out of 3,200, 

down from over 300 in 2006. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Walker. I think that was 

very well stated. I guess I should say, for the record, that I’ve done 

the exact same thing in my office. And I have the flexibility to do 

that. And I believe in that kind of approach for the 45 people that 

work for me. So, I don’t know all the details of this, and I’m not 

going to prejudge, but I most certainly find no fault with the 

thought and the professionalism in which you have addressed this. 

That is exactly what I try to do within the tight budgets that we 

have, to retain the very best staff that I can retain, with the skills 

necessary to do the job I need to do as a Senator. 

IMPLEMENTING A TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AT THE GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Walker, what are the critical factors in implementing a technology assessment function at GAO? Do you see merit in creating 
62 

permanent capability within GAO to study technology assessments? 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you for that question, Madam Chair. 

The Congress, as you know, for several years, has been debating 

whether, and to what extent, to reestablish a technology assessment capability. We have conducted some technology assessments, 

at the request of the Congress, in part to serve as a beta to determine whether or not we might be an appropriate agency to do that 

work. In my opinion, the Congress does need some additional capability with regard to technology assessments. Second, I think we 

have proven that we’ve got the ability to do that work. Third, I 

would question whether or not it makes sense to create a new legislative branch entity with all the different overhead and infrastructure that would have to come with that. 

Should the Congress decide to create this capability, and to place 

it at GAO, we would need a few more FTEs, and we would need 

some additional funding, because we’re already stretched. But I can 

assure you, it would be a lot more cost beneficial to do it at GAO 

than it would be to start something from scratch, a whole new entity, with its own support structure and all the other things that 

would have to come with it. 

RELEVANCE OF EXISTING MANDATES

Senator LANDRIEU. And one more question. You’ve approached 

the subcommittee regarding a number of mandates involving your 

work that you believe should be repealed. Could you reiterate 

those, for the record, and why you think they should be repealed? 

Mr. WALKER. I’ll be happy to provide a list for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

PROPOSED REPEAL AND MODIFICATION OF GAO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

GAO has proposed language that would repeal or modify a number of mandates 

for GAO audits and reports. Most of the mandates impose recurring requirements 

on GAO. While the circumstances of each vary, the common theme is that continued 

audits and reports would provide little or no value and consume resources that 

could be applied to GAO work of higher priority to the Congress. Eliminating these 

mandates would conserve resources while preserving the option for congressional 

committees to request GAO work in areas covered by the specific mandates. 

(a) ANNUAL REPORT BY GAO ON CONSISTENCY OF IMF PRACTICES WITH STATUTORY POLICIES.—Section 504(e) of title V of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2000 (Public Law 106–113—Appendix E) is repealed. 

(b) REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXPORT THRESHOLDS FOR COMPUTERS.— 

Section 314 of title III of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 

106–554—App. B) is repealed. 

(c) ANNUAL REPORTS ON WAITING TIMES FOR APPOINTMENTS FOR SPECIALTY

CARE.—Section 604(c) of the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004 

(Public Law 108–422) is amended by striking ‘‘the Comptroller General of the 

United States’’ and inserting ‘‘the Inspector General of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs’’. 

(d) AUDIT BY GAO.—Paragraph (4)(A) of subsection (f) of section 4404 of Public 

Law 107–171 (2 U.S.C. § 1161(f)(4)(A) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘may’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘annual’’. 

(e) Section 902(k) of the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 

(Public Law 105–277; 8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is repealed. 

(f) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY SPENDING AUDITS.—Section 1904 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6574) is repealed. 

(g) AUDIT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.—Section 11 of the National Moment of 

Remembrance Act (Public Law 106–579; 36 U.S.C. 116 note) is repealed. 
63 

(h) LOSS RATIOS AND REFUND OF PREMIUMS.—Section 1882(r)(5) of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(r)(5)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘(A) The Comptroller General shall periodically, not less 

than once every 3 years,’’ and inserting ‘‘The Secretary may’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘and to the Secretary’’; and 

(2) by striking subparagraph (B). 

(i) GAO REPORTS.—Section 14 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 

(Public Law 101–426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is repealed. 

PROPOSED TRANSFER OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL AUTHORITIES

The proposed language would transfer certain functions currently performed by 

GAO to the Department of Labor. GAO performs purely ministerial functions under 

the Davis-Bacon Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. These 

functions include payment to employees and others pursuant to determinations of 

the Department of Labor, and certain ministerial reporting functions. These functions are more appropriately performed by the Department of Labor. 

(a) AUTHORITY OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO PAY WAGES AND LIST CONTRACTORS VIOLATING CONTRACTS.—Section 3144 of title 40, United States Code, is 

amended— 

(1) in the title, by striking ‘‘of Comptroller General’’; 

(2) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘The Comptroller General’’ and inserting 

‘‘The Secretary of Labor’’; and 

(3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking, in both places, ‘‘Comptroller General’’ 

and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Labor’’. 

(b) REPORTS OF VIOLATIONS AND WITHHOLDING OF AMOUNTS FOR UNPAID WAGES

AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.—Section 3703 of title 40, United States Code, is amended in subsection (b)(3), by 

(1) striking ‘‘The Comptroller General’’ in the first sentence and inserting 

‘‘The Secretary of Labor’’ and 

(2) striking ‘‘the Comptroller General’’ in the second sentence and inserting 

‘‘The Secretary of Labor’’. 

(c) HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN BUILDING TRADES AND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY.—Section 3704 of title 40, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (c)(1), by 

(A) striking ‘‘Transmittal of names of repeat violators to Comptroller 

General’’ and inserting ‘‘Findings of repeat violations’’, and 

(B) striking all words after ‘‘effect’’. 

(2) in subsection (c)(2), by 

(A) striking the first sentence and inserting ‘‘Not sooner than 30 days 

after giving notice of the Secretary of Labor’s finding under paragraph (1) 

to all interested persons, the Secretary shall distribute each name to all 

agencies of the Federal Government.’’; 

(B) striking ‘‘from the date the name is transmitted to the Comptroller 

General’’ in the second sentence; 

(C) striking ‘‘whose name was submitted to the Comptroller General’’ 

in the third sentence; and 

(D) striking the fourth sentence and inserting ‘‘The Secretary shall inform all Government agencies of the Secretary’s action’’. 

Mr. WALKER. But here is the key concept. And it’s something 

that we talked about earlier. Government tends to be an accumulation and amalgamation of various policies, programs, functions, 

and activities over the years; and, in this particular case, of mandates that have come up over the years. Some of them make sense, 

some of them don’t make sense; some of them are outdated, and 

some of them don’t pass a cost-benefit test. So, what we’ve endeavored to do is, we’ve gone back, and we’ve looked at all the mandates that currently apply to us, and we’ve tried to work with the 

Congress in understanding which ones are still relevant, which 

ones have merit, and which ones are cost beneficial. 

And so, I’ll be happy to provide some more for the record, but I— 

it’s kind of a spring cleaning, and spring is coming soon, and—I 

think a lot of people, frankly, need to have a spring cleaning. 
64 

Senator LANDRIEU. My husband would most certainly agree with 

you. He threatens to start one any day. I tell the children, ‘‘Move 

out of the way. You, too, will be thrown out of this house.’’ 

Mr. Turri, we will move now to you. The 49-percent increase in 

your budget is quite substantial. Now, I understand the whole argument about starting from a baseline that’s too low to do the mission, and so a 5 percent or 6 percent isn’t going to make any difference. But, still, that’s fairly significant. So, would you mind trying to explain a little bit more in detail about that? 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FINANCES

Mr. TURRI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just for clarification, GPO is unique in the way it is funded. Of 

all the revenue that we have in our operation, about 80 percent of 

it actually is nonappropriated. It’s based on a revolving fund that 

receives most of its revenue from procured printing, Federal Register printing, the printing of passports, and other products. That 

area actually funds 80 percent of what the agency is all about. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And how much does that generate annually? 

Mr. TURRI. We expect, this year, our total revenue to be around $880 million. So, the balance of the 20 percent or so is appropriated 

funds. Of that particular amount, congressional printing and binding is a significant part of that operation. And this year, what 

we’re asking for is about $21 million plus to bring that budget up 

to where it belongs. In 2005, we were appropriated about $88 million for congressional printing and binding. That particular year, 

we were very close to that appropriation. It kind of bumped right 

up to it. In 2006, we actually exceeded the appropriated number by 

$3 million. We actually had to use transfers to fund that shortfall. 

This year, with a continuing resolution, we project we are going to be in excess of $12 million over the appropriation—the flat funding that we’ve had for the last couple of years. About $5 million of 

that is for the U.S. Code. The rest of it is for the fact that this year 

Congress will have increased days in session, the fact that we have 

wage increases that are mandatory, and materials costs have increased. Those particular items all add up to, as I say, an increased 

amount. And the volume of work that Congress is doing each year 

has increased, and those same arguments will apply to the budget 

of 2008, once again looking at probably about a $9 million increase. 

Just to bring us up to where we belong and the amount of money 

that we are mandated to spend by the work that we do every day, 

will bring our congressional printing and binding budget up by $21 

million. That is something we really have no control over. We are 

just obliged, obviously, every day to print that work. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Can I ask you this? You have been with this 

office for a short period of time? 

Mr. TURRI. I actually have been with the GPO approximately 4 

years as the deputy to Mr. James. In January, I took over as Acting Public Printer, as the search for a new Public Printer continues. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Has the agency ever gone through a comprehensive review—since you’re generating about 80 percent of 

your funding—which is very substantial? I know some of that are 

fees set by Congress for what a passport costs, et cetera—but have 
65 

you ever had a review—since you are in sort of a business that can 

actually produce revenue? Is there any thought that you could actually produce more than you need and get your 80 percent up to 

100 or 110 or 120? 

Mr. TURRI. Are you talking about—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Like an outside review of what you do to suggest additional revenues without driving up the cost of these documents for the users to a point where it would be counterproductive? 

Mr. TURRI. In my tenure, we haven’t undertaken anything like 

that, but it’s certainly something, Madam Chair, that—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. We might want to—— 

Mr. TURRI [continuing]. We could possibly consider. 

SPECIAL DOCUMENTS

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Are all of the new documents 

that are being printed, designed, thought of, for homeland security 

weighing on your office at all? 

Mr. TURRI. It’s really separate and complete. It’s—— 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Just for homeland security? 

Mr. TURRI. No. I would say homeland security, on its own, is not 

necessarily having any significant impact on our business. 

Senator LANDRIEU. You’re required to update the U.S. Code 

every 6 years, so that’s part of this request? 

Mr. TURRI. It’s part of this, Madam Chair. We were notified that 

it looks like it might be pushing more into 2008. We thought we 

were going to be required to print it this year, but currently, we’re 

still printing supplements for the last U.S. Code this year. But, as 

I say, printing it in 2008 won’t decrease our overall budgetary 

needs. It just will push the funding requirement into 2008. 

PASSPORTS

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. And can you give us the status of the 

electronic passport? 

Mr. TURRI. Yes, Madam Chair, I’d be delighted to do that. 

The new passport had just begun to be designed when I arrived 

there, about 4 years ago. The last few years have been spent in the 

process of designing and building a system that would produce a 

biometric passport. In February, or just about 1 year ago, we began 

to get the realization from the State Department that this particular quantity of passports that we had been producing, which 

were about 9 million a year, was beginning to jump at a fairly 

rapid rate, to the point of where now it looks they’re expecting, this 

year, to get about 17 million requests for new passports. That number, as you can imagine, is a significant increase over what was expected. 

Madam Chair, in the particular area of passports, we went from 

30 to 80 employees in the passport division just in the last 12 

months, which obviously, as you can imagine, requires a significant 

amount of ingest and training into that particular operation. We 

have added eight brand new pieces of equipment, which are not 

pieces of equipment that come off assembly lines, they’re all 

predesigned specifically to produce the biometric passport. I’m 

happy to say, though, this particular month that we’re in, as things 

ramp up and continue, we will be producing approximately 1 mil-
66 

lion e-Passports along with still producing the legacy passports of 

around 500,000. This will give us about 11⁄2 million passports this 

month, which would take care of the 17 million passport requests 

that—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Requirement. 

Mr. TURRI [continuing]. Might be coming this year. And I’m very 

proud of what we have accomplished, because even in a ramp-up 

mode, we are producing four times as many e-Passports as any 

country in the world. And we expect this to continue. 

PRODUCTION FACILITY

Senator LANDRIEU. Now, where is this work being done? What 

physical facility? 

Mr. TURRI. Currently it is being done in a building separate from 

our regular GPO offices. It’s actually across the street from our regular buildings. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And since I don’t know where your regular 

building is, help me. 

Mr. TURRI. I’m sorry. It’s—— 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Your regular building? 

Mr. TURRI [continuing]. It’s actually down the street, Madam 

Chair, at 732 North Capitol, not—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. I know where that is. 

Mr. TURRI [continuing]. Far from here. We’d love to have you 

come down and visit our operation sometime. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I want to come see the main building, on 

North Capitol. 

Mr. TURRI. Right. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I’m reminded now of where that is. And this 

other location is right—— 

Mr. TURRI. Right across the—— 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Across the street. 

Mr. TURRI. It’s in a separate building. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And do you find your facilities adequate? 

Aren’t you trying to do some repairs or restoration? 

Mr. TURRI. Well, that particular building is the newest of our 

buildings. The essential repairs and restoration that we’re requesting money for are really needed across the street in our regular 

buildings. What we’re looking for, for passports, is a remote site facility for security and increased production reasons. The idea of 

having passports produced in one place is not—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Ideal. 

Mr. TURRI [continuing]. Correct. We have been searching. And 

we are getting very close, we hope, to identifying someplace that 

may be very close to your home State. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That would be good. 

It’s close to my home State. 

Mr. TURRI. Well, close enough that they can come across the line. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But let me say, I know, from the other committees that I serve on, there is great deal of interest, from many 

different angles, about these new passports and how people are 

going to get them. 

Mr. TURRI. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Who gets them, and—et cetera. 
67 

Mr. TURRI. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I think I would like to plan a field trip to the 

office and—— 

Mr. TURRI. Well—— 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. I’ll take a couple of other—try to 

bring a few Senators with me that are actually either on this committee or the Homeland Security Committee, because there’s a lot 

of concern about all of this new paperwork and documentation that 

we’re going through to try to make our borders more secure without hampering travel, et cetera. So, I think this is going to be an 

issue some of the Senators are going to be interested in. 

And—— 

Mr. TURRI. That would—— 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. Finally—— 

Mr. TURRI. That would be great, Madam Chair. We’d love to have 

you down there. 

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

Senator LANDRIEU. And the Federal Depository Library Program, 

can you tell me where you see this going, because of electronic information? 

Mr. TURRI. Yes. Part of our request this year is for the Federal 

Depository Library Program. We are requesting an increase of approximately $12 million over last year’s funding for this program. 

Two million dollars of that is for mandatory pay and price increases. A little over $3 million of it is for the U.S. Code, printing 

and distribution, and IT support. The balance of the $7 million, Madam Chair, is for projects for 

data migration, data processing, data storage, authentication, cataloging, and indexing, along with web harvesting. We also have 

started a program, which we are continuing, of what’s called outreach, which basically is a review for libraries, to go out and see 

that they’re maintaining the level of operation that they need to do 

for user satisfaction. 

But every one of these things that I have mentioned, as far as 

the data migration, data storage, et cetera, are all necessary for ingest into the future digital system that we’re requesting budgets 

for. Without that particular input into the future digital system, it 

would be like having a home without any sinks or furniture. So, 

the two go hand in hand, quite frankly. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. TURRI. You’re welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

HEALTHCARE COSTS

Senator LANDRIEU. Dr. Orszag, I understand that Senator 

Conrad has a lot of confidence in your ability, and we’ll be looking 

forward to working closely with you. And I know that you’ve 

worked with Senator Gregg as part of the Budget Committee, as 

well. Your efforts in honing down on some of these healthcare costs 

is commendable, because it’s a serious problem in our own general 

budget and a real issue with businesses, large and small. And it’s, 

in my view, something we just can’t sustain, and we have to 

change course. And finding that course has been elusive, to date. 

But are you going to, and how are you going to, coordinate with 
68 

your sister agencies? Or is there any coordination at all? Are you 

all just striking off on your own with this effort? 

Dr. ORSZAG. Senator, there’s a lot of coordination. Clearly, GAO 

does some work in health. MedPAC offers advice and options specifically on Medicare. And what we’re going to try to do is play a 

role in broader healthcare issues, because I believe, and most analysts believe, that it is not possible, over the long term, to slow the 

growth in Medicare and Medicaid unless there is overall slower 

cost growth in the health sector, as a whole. And embedded in that, 

though, is the opportunity—because a variety of evidence suggests 

that we could take costs out of the system without actually harming American’s health. And I think trying to capture that opportunity is the central fiscal challenge facing the Federal Government, and we will be working with any agency that is motivated 

and interested in the same thing, to be putting forward options for 

you to consider. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And I know that your focus is right here in 

the capital, as it should be, with the Federal Government, but I 

know that you’re aware that there are counterparts of yours in all 

50 States, and some exceedingly professional people in those States 

that do for the States what you do for the Federal Government. Is 

there any formal or informal exchange of information, at any level, 

that you all go through with State fiscal officers or budget folks at 

the State levels? 

Dr. ORSZAG. I’m aware of a variety of informal interactions. For 

example, on the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, our analysts are 

in touch with people at the State level, because that’s what you 

need to do in order to fully understand those programs. And, also, 

there are, whenever folks come to Washington, opportunities for 

interactions. We have much less time, resources, and ability to go 

out to the States, but there is also a little bit of that. 

COORDINATION OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I’m going to think through this a little 

bit. But, you know, as I said, I was a member of the Appropriations 

Committee in the House, where I served for 8 years, and it occurred to me there, people in Washington don’t realize that. It reminds me of a slogan that I read once that said, ‘‘You don’t stop 

dancing with a gorilla until the gorilla stops dancing.’’ And the 

Federal Government is a gorilla out there. And where we are 50 

percent of State budgets now, 60 percent of State budgets, it’s hard 

for them to get a handle on their budget when they don’t control 

50 to 60 percent of it. At least that was the case in Louisiana when 

I left to come here. 

And I think that sometimes we don’t realize—maybe it’s because 

we all get this Beltway mentality sometimes, to a certain degree 

or another. And it might be very interesting for you to think 

through that. And I’m going to talk with some of the Senators 

about this and see. It can be done informally. It doesn’t have to be 

done formally. But you might be very surprised at the ideas that 

you might find out there. 

And, Mr. Walker, I don’t know if you have anything—— 

Mr. WALKER. Yes, if I might add—it might be helpful to you and 

to Peter. Obviously, they’re a lot smaller operation than we are. 
69 

Obviously, they’re based solely in Washington, DC, whereas we’re 

in 12 cities. But a couple of thoughts. 

One, I totally agree with Peter that the largest fiscal challenge 

for the Federal Government, State governments, and the private 

sector—is healthcare. He and I get along very well. We’ve already 

started to coordinate efforts. It’s going to be critical that we coordinate in this healthcare area. As you know, I appoint all the 

MedPAC members, and we do quite a bit of healthcare work, too. 

But I’m confident we’ll work together on that. 

With regard to Federal, State, and local, you raise an excellent 

point. I chair something called the Intergovernmental Audit 

Forum, which are all the inspector generals, all the State auditors, 

and all the county and city auditors. We also have something on 

an international basis, the International Organization of Supreme 

Audit Institutions. I didn’t pick the name. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Quite fancy. 

Mr. WALKER. There’s a lot to be learned here, through coordinating efforts, and we’ve, in fact, enhanced that significantly during my tenure. So, I think you’re onto something. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well—I appreciate that, because I just think 

that that’s a whole area that we—you know, our Governors should 

get together with Senators and the House Members, and, of course, 

we have other exchanges. But I think the more staff level exchanges, the better. 

Dr. ORSZAG. If I could add just one other thing, we also have responsibility for identifying mandates that are contained in legislation that are imposed on State and local governments. So, we have 

people who are actively scouring legislation for Federal changes 

that impose mandates on State and local governments. 

OPERATING UNDER THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Could you just comment on how your 

agency is coping with the continuing resolution, which was funded 

below the 2006 level? 

Dr. ORSZAG. We’re making do, as we—you know, as you need to 

in such situations. But I would identify two things. One is information technology. We have delayed investments in computers and 

the normal cycle of replacing equipment, to a degree that’s not sustainable over time. And the second thing is something that you had 

asked about earlier—again, with regard to recruiting, retaining, 

and motivating our people—the current situation, we can get by 

with for 1 year or maybe, you know, a short period of time, but 

there is this underlying pressure, which is that, out of our roughly 

235 people, 218 are professional or management, and 39 percent of 

them are Ph.D.’s, and 38 percent have a master’s degree. The market for those people in academia, at the Federal Reserve, and let 

alone the private sector, has taken off over the past several decades. And we’re obviously operating under a different structure. So, 

that puts pressure on us. And the more that we have very tight 

funding, the more pressure we’re under. And we, therefore, have to 

live off of—you know, we’re lucky that we have a really great reputation and a lot of people want to come work for us, and that— 

despite my kids calling it the ‘‘Congressional Boring Office’’—most 
70 

people in Washington think—seem to think it’s a very exciting 

place to work. So, we will continue to try to uphold that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I wish I could share with you what my kids 

say about my job. 

We won’t even go there. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Ms. Chrisler, I don’t have any particular 

questions. Actually, I do, but do you want to add anything before 

I get to them? And your testimony was excellent, but is there anything you can think you would like to add? 

WORKLOAD DUE TO CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you for the opportunity. One thing that I 

did not mention that I appreciate being given the opportunity to 

mention at this point is the Capitol Visitor Center. And our Office 

has been involved in the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, 

and we’re appreciative of the opportunity to provide technical assistance and technical advice, at this point in the construction, 

prior to occupancy. Once occupancy does take place, the Capitol 

Visitor Center is going to add 0.7 million square feet of inspection 

jurisdiction to our Office, and there is a portion in our budget request to respond to that increased workload. 

So, I thank you for allowing me to present that. 

FIRE ALARM TESTING IN THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

Senator LANDRIEU. Do you believe that the amount of testing 

deemed necessary by the Architect of the Capitol and the fire marshal for the CVC is adequate? Have you been looking at that, the 

testing for the fire threat? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you for the question. We—our Office has 

been involved in discussions regarding the fire testing and the fire 

issues with respect to the Capitol Visitor Center. Our General 

Counsel, Peter Eveleth, is with me today, and he has been directly 

involved in those conversations. And, if I may ask your indulgence, 

I would ask that he be allowed to specifically respond to your question. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay, that would be terrific. And then, if 

your board member wants to come forward and just speak for a 

couple of minutes that would be terrific. You all could just pull up 

two additional chairs, if you’d like, or however. Y’all have the 

smallest budget and most people. 

So, David, if you all will just bear with them just for a minute. 

Give them a minute. Just because they’re little doesn’t mean 

they’re not important. 

Mr. EVELETH. Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Pete 

Eveleth. I’m the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance. 

With respect to the testing of fire alarms and the other systems 

in the CVC, we’ve been working closely with the fire marshal, and 

we have been reviewing various regulations that impact that. And 

we support the efforts of the fire marshal in that regard, that there 

should be complete 100-percent testing—acceptance testing of those 

alarm systems, given, particularly, the location of the facility, because it is underground, and a failure of any kind of systems 

would—could result in a catastrophe, given the number of people—— 
71 

Senator LANDRIEU. And we think that’s going to take about 6 

months of complete testing? Is that what I’ve heard? 

Mr. EVELETH. I couldn’t tell you exactly how much that’s going 

to be. It may be—it may depend on how much pretesting is done 

in advance of the acceptance testing. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. 

Ms. CAMENS. Madam Chair, good morning. I’m Barbara Camens, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the board 

of directors of the Office. 

I have two brief comments, both of which have to do with statutory changes which are sought by the board of directors. 

The first has to do with the issue of internal promotion within 

the Office. Our statute, the Congressional Accountability Act, requires that the four statutory positions that are appointed by the 

board be held by individuals who have not previously worked within the legislative branch during the previous 4 years. This provision essentially makes it impossible for any internal promotion 

within our Office. Our Acting Executive Director, Ms. Chrisler, was 

originally appointed by the board to the Deputy Executive Director 

position, and, given that fact, and given the current statutory language, the board is precluded from considering her for permanent 

appointment, notwithstanding the confidence that we have in her 

performance. And the issue is broader. Obviously, it has an impact 

on our entire Office staff. The board of directors is seeking a statutory change to give us the ability to fully access and utilize and reward, through internal promotion, the talent and accumulated experience which has been developed within our Office. And we do 

seek your support. 

Second, we are seeking some additional flexibility, in terms of 

compensation within our Office. Specifically, we’re seeking an 

amendment to our statute to permit the establishment of two senior Executive Service positions, with regard to the Executive Director and the General Counsel. Our Office has recently undergone a 

comprehensive human capital needs study, and the conclusion of 

the outside consultant was that these two top manager positions 

share many attributes of SES positions in other agencies, and yet, 

we have a statute which imposes a salary cap. We are seeking a 

legislative change to allow the establishment of these SES positions. And we think it’s crucial, both to the recruitment and the retention of the individuals of the high caliber that we need, the 

sense of leadership, the sense of vision that is necessary for leading 

our Office into the future. 

Thank you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

My questions have all been answered. 

Do you all have anything else that you want to add for the 

record? And, of course, the record is open, and you can submit anything in writing. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 
72 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DAVID M. WALKER

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

STAFFING

Question. I understand you would like to increase GAO staffing to 3,750 over the 

next 5 or 6 years. Please explain how you arrived at this staffing level as the optimal level for GAO, what specific areas additional staff would be deployed to, and 

the results you would anticipate. 

Answer. Our initial estimate of this FTE level has been informed by (1) the recent 

update of our Strategic Plan for serving the Congress for fiscal years 2007–2012, 

(2) what we believe would be sufficient to minimize the existing and anticipated 

backlog in areas where we are experiencing supply and demand imbalances, and (3) 

address other critical needs. Our Strategic Plan for serving the Congress is updated 

through continuous consultations with the Congress. 

Our request for FTE’s is then based on a systematic assessment of the workforce 

that we will need to achieve the strategic goals and objectives outlined in our Strategic Plan in support of the Congress and the American people. Annually, we develop a workforce plan that results from a detailed analysis of staffing considerations. Our workforce needs assessment is an essential element in our strategic approach to managing GAO—an approach that links human capital and performance 

management with strategic planning, budgeting, and performance accountability. 

Specifically, our FTE request is based on a thorough assessment of a number of 

factors including: Congressional requests and interests, statutory mandates, strategic priorities, emerging issues, current staffing data (FTE usage, attrition, consultant and contract usage, staff distribution by level and type), identified skill shortages, succession and knowledge retention issues, results achieved with staff resources, and budgetary considerations. As part of our workforce planning process, 

GAO managers identify the types of skills and experience and the level and numbers of employees needed to accomplish our anticipated workload. Relative to current and projected staffing data, our managers assess whether GAO has too few or 

too many staff working in each strategic area. Having received this input from our 

managers, the GAO leadership team makes fact-based decisions about our FTE 

needs and the optimal deployment of our staff resources to most efficiently accomplish our work. 

The 3,750 represents a preliminary estimate and a not to exceed number based 

on existing and expected workloads. It also assumes an increasing role for GAO in 

a range of areas addressed in our strategic plan and our 21st Century Challenges 

report of February 2005. For example, an increase in GAO’s staffing level over the 

next 6 years is needed to allow us to address critical needs including supply and 

demand imbalances in areas such as health care, homeland security, the global ‘‘war 

on terrorism,’’ energy and natural resources, and forensic auditing, technology assessments, and other areas in need of fundamental reform. Also, additional staff are 

needed to support GAO efforts to be able to render our opinion on the consolidated 

financial statements of the U.S. government and the Department of Defense’s financial management and related systems. 

HUMAN CAPITAL ISSUES

Question. Over the past few Congresses, you have received additional human capital flexibilities through two pieces of targeted legislation. How have these pieces of 

legislation helped GAO to become a model federal agency? Given some of the challenges you have faced within your agency over the past few years, what else do you 

believe needs to be done in order to improve upon your human capital situation? 

Answer. The GAO Personnel Flexibilities Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–303), and 

the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–271), are the two recent pieces of legislation that were enacted by Congress on behalf of GAO. GAO 

sought this legislation in order to help to reshape its workforce and recruit and retain staff with needed technical skills. The Comptroller General was granted permanent authority to offer voluntary early retirement and separation incentive payments to realign the workforce to meet budgetary constraints while reducing highgrade, managerial or supervisory positions and correcting skill imbalances. In fiscal 

years 2001 through 2006, GAO has granted voluntary early retirement to a total 

of 177 employees. These early retirements helped GAO reshape its workforce by providing retirement to mostly high-graded staff and allowed GAO to address succession planning and skill imbalance issues in addition to increasing the numbers of 

entry-level staff who can be hired. GAO was also able to establish senior level scientific, technical and professional positions with the same pay and benefits applica-
73 

ble to the Senior Executive Service. This authority has been used to employ GAO’s 

Chief Actuary, Chief Statistician and Chief Economist. Another authority in the law 

allowed GAO to provide certain key employees with less than 3 years’ service to 

earn 160 hours of annual leave each year rather than 104 hours. This has given 

GAO the ability to recruit individuals with significant work experience who might 

not have otherwise considered joining the federal workforce. GAO has just recently 

recruited 2 individuals under the Executive Exchange Program provided for in section 7 of Public Law 108–371. This partnership will assist us in drawing on the expertise of individuals from accounting firms, information technology firms, consulting groups and other organizations to develop solutions to current and emerging 

issues. These innovative human capital management flexibilities have been instrumental in enabling GAO to become a world-class professional services organization. 

We have other human capital challenges for which we may seek additional assistance from Congress to address: 

—Ensure that the bonus portion of our annual performance based compensation 

counts for retirement as long as employee’s total basic pay plus performance 

based compensation is below the maximum for his or her position. GAO has implemented a performance-based compensation system that is designed to enhance performance and accountability while helping the agency maintain a competitive advantage in attracting, motivating, retaining, and rewarding a high 

performing and quality workforce. As part of this modern system, an employee’s 

performance-based compensation is distributed between a base pay increase and 

a bonus. This latter payment is currently not considered in calculating an employee’s basic pay for purposes of his/her annuity. 

—Eliminate GS–15, step 10, cap to allow the Comptroller General to pay employees up to the rate for Executive Level III based on the results of our periodic 

market pay studies. GAO has a highly diversified and skilled workforce that 

performs work of the highest level and importance. Presently, employees other 

than those in the Senior Level or Senior Executive Service are limited by statute to a pay rate that cannot exceed GS–15, step 10. According to recent market 

surveys commissioned by GAO, some of GAO’s professionals, such as economists 

and attorneys, cannot be compensated commensurate with market rates because of this statutory limitation. This is problematic, since GAO must compete 

for its staff with the private sector and other public agencies that can pay more. 

For example, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other agencies concerned with financial 

matters are not subject to the GS–15 limit. 

—Eliminate the prohibitive cost associated with buyouts by amending Public Law 

106–303 to remove the requirement, consistent with the rest of the federal government, that GAO make additional contributions to retirement funds in the 

case of voluntary separation incentive payments (VSIP) to GAO employees. This 

payment renders this flexibility virtually unusable, especially in these times of 

budget constraint. 

Question. In 2005 and 2006, GAO conducted a restructuring of Band II staff and 

placed employees in one of two pay levels. What was the impetus for this effort? 

What are you doing to address the concerns that have been raised? 

Answer. As part of our overall human capital transformation efforts, GAO has developed and implemented a validated competency-based appraisal system and modern market-based and skills, knowledge, and performance-oriented compensation 

system. When developing the Analysts’ competency-based performance system, some 

Band II staff responded that certain activities associated with staff leadership were 

critical to their jobs and others did not. This bimodal response indicated that different roles and responsibilities were being performed by staff within the band. As 

a next step in its human capital transformation, GAO proceeded to develop a compensation system that would: 

—Enable GAO to attract and retain top talent; 

—Result in equal pay for work of equal value over time; 

—Reflect the roles and responsibilities that staff are expected to perform; 

—Be reasonable, competitive, performance-oriented; and based on skills, knowledge and roles; 

—Be affordable and sustainable based on current and expected resource levels; 

and 

—Conform to applicable statutory limits. 

The purpose of restructuring the Band II position was to clearly distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of those analysts who are generally individual 

contributors and/or sometimes provide overall leadership on selected engagements 

and those who are expected to consistently take on a leadership role for a broad 

range of engagements over time. When comparing Band II roles, responsibilities and 
74 

pay to the market, a Watson Wyatt market based compensation study supported the 

CG decision that these two roles should have different pay ranges. By better linking 

roles and responsibilities to the appropriate market-based pay ranges, senior analysts will be more equitably compensated. 

Since the initial restructuring and placement of staff into the Band IIA and IIB 

pay levels, GAO has conducted 2 competitive placement opportunities resulting in 

the placement of additional staff into Band IIB. To address concerns regarding compensation for Band IIA employees, we decided for 2007 pay decisions to provide 100 

percent of the performance based compensation amount to those Band IIA staff 

whose salaries were above the Band IIA maximum rate (i.e., ‘‘transition staff’’). In 

2006, Band IIA transition staff received only 50 percent of their performance based 

compensation. 

Question. It is our understanding that you relied upon the results of a market 

based pay study to establish pay ranges for GAO staff and to limit the compensation 

of those employees who were paid in excess of these ranges. CRS has stated that 

these limitations have had the impact of significantly reducing the salary and future 

pension benefits of affected GAO staff. Can you share with the committee the data 

that GAO relied upon to conclude that GAO’s Analyst Band II staff were overpaid 

and that such actions were therefore justified? 

Answer. GAO has established market based compensation ranges for major occupational groups. These ranges are based on salary surveys conducted by Watson 

Wyatt Worldwide, a leading human capital consulting firm. Watson Wyatt’s process 

for developing the ranges entailed meeting with GAO occupational experts to develop an understanding of GAO’s positions, linking these positions to comparable 

jobs in comparator organizations, and collecting salary data from various sources for 

such positions. Among the sources of salary data used by Watson Wyatt were the 

following surveys: Abbot Langer Consulting and Legal, Altman Weil Legal, Cordom 

Not-for-Profit, Mercer IT and Watson Wyatt Data for Professional positions and others. We would be happy to brief the Committee on the extensive data, if requested, 

and provide further details. 

Question. Federal employees in the Washington, DC area received across-theboard and locality adjustments resulting in base pay increases of 2.64 percent in 

January 2007. What increase was provided to GAO staff? What was the basis for 

GAO’s increase and why does it differ from other federal employees? 

Answer. In 2007, the Comptroller General authorized a 3 percent increase in the 

salary ranges applicable for GAO employees within the ranges. A 2.4 percent increase in the annual salary for all employees performing at a satisfactory level who 

were within competitive compensation limits was provided. This percentage was 

based on the annual update of competitive compensation trends conducted by Watson Wyatt. In addition, GAO employees were also eligible for performance-based 

compensation (PBC) adjustments. PBC is based on individual performance and is 

calculated as a percentage of the ‘‘competitive’’ or market rate for the employee’s 

band and location. An employee with an average appraisal would receive a PBC 

amount equal to 2.15 percent of the competitive rate for his or her position as base 

pay and/or as bonus. Except for Band IIB staff subject to the speed bump who received their entire PBC amount in the form of a bonus, 100 percent of the 2007 PBC 

amount was provided to all other staff as an increase to base pay not to exceed the 

maximum rate applicable to the employee’s position. 

The Comptroller General’s determination regarding the amount of the annual adjustment was based on a consideration of the criteria set forth in 31 U.S.C. 

732(c)(3). Among the data considered by the Comptroller General was salary survey 

information indicating that consulting, professional, scientific and technical services 

organizations actually adjusted ranges by an average of 2.7 percent in 2006 and projected an adjustment of 3 percent in 2007. Prior to the passage of Public Law 108– 

371, GAO employees’ salaries were given the same base and locality increase as the 

General Schedule. As provided in 31 U.S.C. 732(c)(3), GAO employees’ increases 

were decoupled from the General Schedule and the authority to determine the 

amount of the increase was granted to the Comptroller General. 

The average across-the-board increase provided to executive branch employees 

was 2.2 percent nation-wide. In addition, most executive branch employees receive 

within grade increases on a regular basis and the annual value of such an increase 

is approximately 1.6 percent. GAO employees received a 2.4 percent across-theboard increase and were eligible for additional performance based pay. An employee 

with an average appraisal would receive a performance based pay amount equal to 

2.15 percent of the competitive rate for his or her position. 

Question. Each year, federal employees’ pay adjustments are effective the first pay 

period beginning on or after January 1. Our understanding is that GAO employees 

did not receive their pay adjustments in January. When did GAO provide its across 
75 

1Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO–03–174 (November 15, 

2002); Technology Assessment: Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Protection, GAO–04–321 

(May 28, 2004); Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications 

during Wildland Fires, GAO–05–380 (April 26, 2005); and Technology Assessment: Securing the 

Transport of Cargo Containers, GAO–06–68SU (January 25, 2006). 2 High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO–07–310 (January 2007). 

the board increase? Why is the date different than and later than other legislative 

agencies, given that the entire government was subject to the same budget uncertainties? 

Answer. The effective date of GAO employees’ pay adjustment was February 18, 

2007. Under 31 U.S.C. 732(c)(3), the Comptroller General is authorized to set the 

date of GAO employees’ pay adjustments as well as the amount. GAO delayed the 

annual pay adjustment because we did not receive the funding requested, to ensure 

that we would not negatively impact our ability to operate effectively, and to avoid 

unpaid furloughs of our employees. 

GAO TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Question. Mr. Walker, there is interest once again in re-funding the old Office of 

Technology Assessment. In response to such interest back in 2002, our Committee 

established a pilot program for GAO to conduct technology assessment. How successful was that effort, and do you believe GAO can continue to effectively conduct 

non-partisan forward-looking technology assessment work? GAO has completed 4 

technology assessment jobs in the past couple of years, which were requested in a 

bi-cameral, bi-partisan fashion. Were those work-products well-received and are the 

findings being utilized? Can you describe GAO’s in-house capacity for technology assessment? 

Answer. In response to the committee’s direction to establish a technology assessment pilot program at GAO, we have completed four technology assessment reports.1 Our products have been relevant, timely, and well-received. For example, we 

testified before three different congressional committees on our findings in our biometrics report. As a result of one of these hearings, and using information from our 

biometrics report, a bill was introduced in the House in July 2004, directing the 

Transportation Security Administration to establish system requirements and performance standards for using biometrics, and to establish processes (1) to prevent 

individuals from using assumed identities to enroll in a biometric system and (2) 

to resolve errors. These provisions were later included in an overall aviation security 

bill and were eventually included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, enacted in December 2004. The biometrics report is still relevant, 

even after 4 years, in examining the numerous biometrics programs being developed 

in the federal government. 

GAO has designated cybersecurity as a high-risk area since 1997 and the technologies discussed in our technology assessment report on cybersecurity play a key 

role in addressing this area.2 In 2005, we testified on the findings of our report on 

technologies that can be used to protect structures and improve communications 

during wildland fires. Senator Bingaman sent a letter to the Comptroller General 

thanking us for this report, stating that such studies are important tools for understanding the technology implications of policies considered by Congress. In March 

2006, Senator Bingaman sent another letter to the Comptroller General thanking 

us for our timely, thorough, and well-received report on cargo security technologies, 

which he stated will help the Congress perform its oversight functions with regard 

to port and container security. 

A technology assessment function in the legislative branch can be beneficial. For 

congressional decision-makers, an independent technology assessment study can 

make complex scientific and technical issues more accessible by analyzing the values and tradeoffs of various technologies and presenting them in a public policy context that can be applied directly into the legislative process. Should the Congress 

determine the need for this type of analysis and that it would be more prudent to 

place the function in an existing organization rather than create a new one, we believe that GAO is qualified to take on this function. A GAO line of work on technology assessments would not be a departure from its normal mission, but a process 

of differentiating, defining, and implementing new work methods. GAO’s focus on 

producing quality reports that are professional, objective, fact-based, fair, balanced, 

nonideological, and nonpartisan is consistent with the needs of an independent legislative branch technology assessment function. 

Further, GAO’s work already covers virtually every area in which the federal government is or may become involved. To accomplish this work, GAO maintains a 

workforce of highly trained professionals with degrees in many academic disciplines, 
76 

including accounting, law, engineering, public and business administration, economics, and the social and physical sciences. More specifically, GAO’s Center for Technology and Engineering, which led our pilot program in technology assessment, is 

staffed by engineers and scientists with experience in systems engineering, software 

engineering, real-time systems, computer security, cost estimation, and biological 

technologies. To leverage our multidiscipline workforce, we have staffed our technology assessments with both staff from the Center for Technology and Engineering 

and analysts in our mission teams, such as Homeland Security and Justice, Information Technology, and Natural Resources and Environment. 

While GAO is capable of conducting the work, we believe there are critical factors 

that need to be considered to conduct technology assessments on a permanent basis 

at GAO. First, we would need to define an operational concept for this line of work, 

adapted from current tested processes and protocols. At a minimum, this capability 

would require: (1) developing and maintaining relationships with relevant congressional committees to facilitate the selection of technology assessment topics; (2) 

keeping congressional committees abreast of the results of technology assessments, 

meeting with members and staff, and preparing testimony statements for relevant 

hearings; (3) developing and maintaining relationships with key external experts 

and organizations to remain informed about emerging technologies and potential related public policy issues; (4) developing, documenting, and refining processes for 

conducting technology assessments; (5) consulting with independent experts and 

conducting peer review of reports; (6) developing standards and procedures for 

issuing technology assessment reports as distinct from our audit products; and (7) 

developing metrics to measure the value of the technology assessment capability. 

A second critical factor is the estimation of resources for conducting technology 

assessments. To establish a basic capability to conduct one assessment annually, 

GAO would require four additional full-time staff, at an estimated cost of about 

$723,000 ($573,000 for four FTEs and $150,000 to obtain contract assistance or provide expertise not readily available within GAO). For higher demands, additional 

technology assessment requests would require—depending on economies of scale, 

timing, and scope of work—incremental additional resources. 

GAO OPERATIONS UNDER THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Question. Mr. Walker, according to your statement, GAO has had to operate in 

a constrained manner this year because of resource shortfalls under the continuing 

resolution. Are there significant numbers of Congressional requests GAO is turning 

down, or is it taking longer to get work done? What is your current backlog of Congressional requests? How does this compare to previous years? 

Answer. We are only a few months into the new Congress and we see several 

trends which lead us to believe that Congress will be requesting much more of GAO. 

For instance, our current backlog as of March 2007 has grown above 2005 and 2006 

levels. Also, during our outreach for our upcoming strategic plan update, we have 

been told that demand will likely increase. We are seeing this in the recent surge 

in requests for GAO testimonies during the Congress’s first few months. We have 

been quite fortunate that much of this early testimony has been based on previous 

work. Constraints on FTEs due to the current funding situation for the remainder 

of fiscal year 2007 will likely prevent us from being as responsive in the future as 

Congress begins to request new work for the second session. 

More specifically, we are currently experiencing supply and demand imbalances 

in responding to congressional requests in areas such as health care, homeland security, the global ‘‘war on terrorism,’’ energy and natural resources, and forensic auditing. In fiscal year 2007, we will experience a reduction of 35 FTEs—from 3,194 

to 3,159—from our fiscal year 2006 FTE level, which will exacerbate the problem. 

In fiscal year 2008, we are seeking an FTE increase in teams conducting work related to homeland security, defense, natural resources and energy, and health care 

to help address these supply and demand imbalances. We will also be seeking your 

commitment and support to provide the funding needed to increase GAO’s staffing 

to a to-be-determined level not to exceed 3,750 over the next 6 years in order to address critical needs, including supply and demand imbalances, high-risk areas, 21st 

Century Challenges questions and other areas of the federal government in need of 

fundamental reform, and technology assessments. In addition, as we get closer to 

when GAO may be able to render our opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government and the Department of Defense’s financial management and related systems, we will need to increase our workforce capacity. 

GAO has made significant progress in reducing the very large backlog of Congressional requests over the past several years so that we can better support the Congress, but this has been very difficult to achieve. We are doubtful that it will con-
77 

tinue based on our outreach efforts with the new Congress and the constrained resource level we will be operating at through fiscal year 2007. As of March 31, 2007, 

we had a workload imbalance of 419 requests—a growing increase over the last two 

years. The general result of GAO’s initiative to be more responsive to the Congress 

is seen in the following table showing the pending requests at the end of each year. 

PENDING REQUESTS AS OF DECEMBER 31ST OF EACH YEAR 

Requests 

2002 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 463 

2003 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 390 

2004 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 492 

2005 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 358 

2006 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 329 

2007 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 419 

1 As of March 31, 2007 

Last year (fiscal year 2006), we accepted about 85–88 percent of the requests received. Of these, roughly one-fourth (22 percent) were delayed. Of those not accepted, some were declined, withdrawn, sent to an Executive agency, or were pending 

a decision by GAO on whether we are able to accept the request. We also have done 

and are doing work, on such topics as Iraq and Katrina, under the Comptroller General’s authority because there is such broad congressional interest in them. We believe this has also served to limit the number of requests we would have received 

on these issues. Due to the increasing supply and demand imbalances, GAO typically has been unable to accept requests from individual members in recent years 

and has worked to merge requests so that we can do related work for several requesters. 

Our requested work has also been taking somewhat longer to start—almost doubling in some areas—resulting in longer timeframes to respond to the requester. 

The table below shows the average number of months that it has taken us to start 

mandates (priority 1), requests from Committee chairs and ranking members (priority 2), and requests from members (priority 3). 

AVERAGE DURATION TO INITIATE ENGAGEMENTS 

[In months] 

2004 2005 2006 

Priority: 

1 1 .................................................................................................................. 1.82 2.49 2.74 

2 .................................................................................................................... 2.93 2.49 3.91 

3 .................................................................................................................... 2.74 4.41 6.37 

1 Prior to the update of GAO’s Congressional Protocols in July 2004, priority 1 designation included requests from committee chairs and 

ranking minority members. 

GAO SUPPLEMENTAL

Question. GAO is requesting $374,000 for oversight work in Iraq. Why can’t GAO 

absorb this relatively small amount of funding within its $500 million budget? 

Answer. Because about 80 percent of our budget provides funds to support our 

staff—our most important asset—and the balance of our budget contains many mandatory operating expenses—such as rent, utilities, and contracts for ongoing operations—we have very limited flexibility to make adjustments. In fiscal year 2007, 

we received significantly less funding than we had requested. In order to operate 

within the constraints of the fiscal year 2007 joint resolution, our Operating Plan 

holds most of our budget accounts at or below fiscal year 2006 funding levels, resulting in reduced operating levels, deferred hiring to address succession planning challenges and skill gaps, and delayed investments geared to further increasing productivity and effectiveness. While we have allocated funds to address needed oversight 

work in Iraq, additional funds are needed to allow us to maintain a continuing presence in Baghdad. 

Question. GAO has an extensive array of performance targets and measures. Your 

testimony indicates that you met most of your performance targets. How often do 

you reevaluate those measures to see whether they are responsive to GAO and the 

Congress? Do you have them evaluated by an independent party, such as during a 

peer review? 
78 

Answer. GAO’s performance measures include those measures traditionally used 

by auditing and professional services firms. Annually, GAO reviews its performance 

targets and continuously reevaluates its performance measures. In fact, it is rare 

for a year to pass without some refinements in our performance indicators to help 

us better manage our agency to support the Congress for the benefit of the American people. For example, in the past few years, we have added measures to better 

assess how our support units are doing their jobs; changed our measure for determining how timely our products are by obtaining feedback directly from our congressional clients; and eliminated measures, such as the number of recommendations 

made, that we thought were no longer useful. Further, as we continue to gain more 

experience, we anticipate making additional changes so that we can better support 

the Congress. 

In addition to the continuous evaluations by our Office of Quality and Continuous 

Improvement, we routinely receive suggestions from such organizations as (1) GAO’s 

Inspector General, who annually reviews some of the measures before they are included in the annual Performance and Accountability report, (2) an independent 

Audit Advisory Committee as part of their annual review of GAO’s financial statements and performance data included in our annual Performance and Accountability Report, and (3) independent reviewers for the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) as part of their annual process to evaluate Performance and Accountability Reports submitted by participating executive branch agencies and GAO. 

Specifically, staff in our Inspector General’s (IG) office test our compliance with 

procedures related to our performance data on a rotating basis over a 3-year period. 

During fiscal year 2006, the IG reviewed accomplishment reports totaling 96 percent 

of the total dollar value reported for financial benefits, including most accomplishment reports of $100 million or more, and found that GAO had a reasonable basis 

for claiming these benefits. Their suggestions have also resulted in policy clarifications or changes in the performance measures reported. For example, the IG’s review of fiscal year 2005 qualitative measures led to GAO discontinuing public reporting of these measures and retaining them for internal use. The 3-member Audit 

Advisory Committee is composed of individuals who are independent of GAO and 

have outstanding reputations in public service or business with financial or legal expertise. Two members are former IRS Commissioners and the other member is a 

former Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management in OMB. The comments we receive from the committee members have, among other things, helped 

to ensure transparency in our Performance and Accountability Report when we describe our performance measurement processes and results. Comments that we receive as part of the AGA’s Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting program also help improve the transparency and clarity of our performance reporting. 

GAO also recognizes that our performance measures can be supplemented by 

other information. We do this by taking such actions as outreaching for feedback 

on our performance to our congressional clients on an annual basis, participating 

in periodic oversight hearings of GAO’s performance and operations, using our audits to identify best practices and then applying them to GAO’s operations, listening 

closely to Congressional clients who provide unsolicited comments throughout the 

year, and seeking continuous feedback from our clients as part of our web-based 

survey to measure satisfaction with our most significant written products and testimonies. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LANDRIEU. The subcommittee stands in recess. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Friday, March 16, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(79) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 

FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu and Allard. 

U.S. SENATE 

SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

STATEMENT OF HON. TERRANCE W. GAINER, SENATE SERGEANT AT 

ARMS; CHAIRMAN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DREW WILLISON, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS 

CARL HOECKER, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Good morning. Our subcommittee will come 

to order. We have a routine but important subcommittee meeting 

this morning to review the budgets for the Senate Sergeant at 

Arms, the U.S. Capitol Police Board and the Capitol Police. We 

welcome our witnesses to the subcommittee and I thank Senator 

Allard for joining us. I look forward to working with Senator Allard 

on this subcommittee, as he chaired it for several years, and is very 

interested in the subjects that we will be discussing this morning. 

So let me welcome you all. 

We meet this morning to take testimony on the fiscal year 2008 

budget request, as I said, for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper 

of the Senate, which is his official name and the United States 

Capitol Police. 

I would like to welcome Terry Gainer who joins us today to testify on behalf of the budget. I’d also like to acknowledge and welcome his Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Drew Willison. I had the pleasure of working with Drew previously when he was the clerk of the 

Energy and Water Subcommittee and I always found him to be direct and efficient and I appreciate his work here. 

Our second witness is Phillip Morse, Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. I welcome you Chief. Thank you for coming to my office and 

visiting with me earlier this week. This is a fairly new position for 
80 

you and I believe you were sworn in 5 months ago today. So you’re 

getting your head and hands around the challenges before us. I 

look forward to hearing your vision and your priorities for the Department. 

The 2008 budget request for the Sergeant at Arms totals $227 

million, which is $28 million or 14 percent above the current year. 

This request includes funding for 19 additional full-time employees, 

which appears to be needed largely to fill technology-related positions. The increase in your expense budget of nearly 17 percent 

also seems to be technologically driven. Several of my questions 

will address this particular increase. 

The Capitol Police budget request for 2008 totals $299 million, 

which is $43.5 million or 17 percent above the current year. This 

request includes funding for 20 additional civilian employees and 

supports the current force of 1,671 sworn officers, which is quite a 

large force. 

I hope you will update the subcommittee on the need for these 

extra civilian positions, Chief. While your salary budget shows an 

increase of 9 percent, your expense request has increased by over 

60 percent. This is a pretty substantial increase and I look forward 

to discussing this with you and the priorities you have outlined in 

this area. 

As I’ve said in previous hearings and it bears repeating that I 

doubt the subcommittee will have the resources available to provide double digit increases for all of our entities. Therefore, at some 

point in the near future we’re going to have to have some serious 

discussions with you and your staff about what are the most urgent 

priorities as we try to continue our push for safety, additional safety in the Capitol, but recognizing there are some budget constraints 

here. 

In closing, I’d like to acknowledge all the good work by the employees of your staffs. I know they are working hard to get some 

of our things in order and I’m sure you’re both very proud of what 

they are doing to help you. So I’d like to now turn to my friend and 

ranking member Senator Allard for his opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman and I look forward to working with you on this budget. I thank you for convening this hearing. I appreciate that. I am pleased to see Sergeant 

at Arms Terry Gainer and Chief Phil Morse this morning and congratulations to both of you on your new positions. I look forward 

to working with both of you. I appreciate the work you and the 

men and women who work for you—the work that they do—the officers who protect the Capitol complex, the Sergeant at Arms employees who ensure our mail is safe, the folks who develop emergency plans, the doorkeepers, the phone operators, technology specialists and many others who I haven’t mentioned who ensure everything runs smoothly in the Senate. I’m one Member of the Senate who really appreciates all your efforts. 

This morning I will have a number of questions including one 

about the Sergeant at Arms request for additional staffing. Madam 

Chairman, I’ve talked about this in the Sergeant at Arms hearings 
81 

in the past 2 years. If this year’s request is approved, the Sergeant 

at Arms will have grown by 25 percent since 2001. 

With respect to the Capitol Police, I am pleased that we now 

have a permanent Chief on board as well as an inspector general. 

There are many challenges ahead for the Chief including the need 

to get the administrative side of the House in order, as well as control overtime spending and ensure that officers are deployed effectively and according to a rigorous threat assessment. 

Several studies and reviews of Capitol Police officer staffing have 

been undertaken or are underway to ensure appropriate protocols 

for staffing. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a lot of coordination amongst these various staffing analyses. Unfortunately, 

we need to see a firm plan for appropriate risk-based staffing of 

posts and the most effective use of additional duty hours. I would 

like to see this brought to closure over the next couple of months. 

Let me also say that we were shocked last September when a deranged intruder managed to breach several checkpoints and gain 

access to the Capitol. This was a wake-up call. I look to Capitol Police leadership and we want to be confident that such an occurrence could never happen again. 

I would note that the Capitol Police are requesting a very large 

increase in civilian staffing, 30 additional employees. This would 

result in more than a 100-percent increase in civilian staffing since 

2001. With that in mind, there should be no reason that very serious management problems identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) could not be resolved. 

I have been working with a lot of the other agencies on the executive branch side about bringing accountability to their budget 

process. As you may be aware of, there is a process we apply to the 

executive branch that we do not apply to legislative branch agencies. I’m one that feels that what we require of the rest of Government, we ought to require of the legislative branch. 

So this GAO report that has come out has me concerned. I think 

there are some very serious statements in this GAO report about 

financial management operations and what I see, Madam Chairman, is that we need to emphasize particularly to the Chief of Police and those that are under him, the importance of putting together an accountable budget, one that identifies goals and objectives that are measurable and then tie the budget into those. 

I noticed in the last several years, I’ve been authorizing a lot of 

reprogramming of dollars. What that tells me is, we’re not doing 

a very good job of programming the money. Chief Morse, this is a 

problem you’ve inherited. I hope you can begin to really focus on 

what it is going to take and if you have to work with GAO or Mr. 

Gainer with his past experience in the Department, to improve accountability and financial management. 

You can expect me to be diligent in asking for accountability on 

some of these issues. I want you to understand that it is because 

I feel we have to do a little better job in the legislative branch of 

holding our own agencies accountable. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you and let me say to my ranking 

member that I share those goals and objectives and I don’t think 

the legislative branch should be held out in any other standard 
82 

than we hold the other agencies that we have jurisdiction over. So 

I look forward to working with you in a cooperative way to get to 

the goals and objectives that we can have the best police force and 

best security for the Capitol, not just for those of us that work here 

and call this our workplace, but most importantly, for the millions 

of people that visit here and call this place the People’s House. It 

is very important that we keep that in mind. So with that, Mr. 

Gainer would you like to begin your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF TERRANCE W. GAINER

Mr. GAINER. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify here today, and I 

ask to submit for the record my written testimony. I would also 

like to make a few brief comments about the efforts of the men and 

women of the Sergeant at Arms Office and our budget and then 

quickly segue into my role as Chairman of the Police Board. 

This marks the 12th time I have presented a budget for an organization for which I have been responsible—seven times as the director of the Illinois State Police, four times as the Chief of the 

Capitol Police and now as the new Senate Sergeant at Arms. 

Each time increases were requested, each time I struggled with 

my own team to request only what was needed to be successful at 

our core business. While need might be in the eye of the beholder 

I have not employed the tactic where one sets a high mark, figuring that the give and take of the budget process yields a mutually agreeable number which leaves all participants satisfied. 

At the same time, I have never received all that I requested, nor 

have I ever been able to submit a request for a flat budget. In all 

cases, however, in all those organizations, the operations of the organization continue to be professional. 

On several occasions, I have begun a budget year knowing the 

organization could not be as cutting edge as possible, for projects 

might take longer, service might not be as perfect as professionals 

expect, yet the organizations always survive. 

This Sergeant at Arms budget regretfully is no different than 

those I have presented for other organizations. We are requesting 

more, as you’ve indicated, practically 14 percent more, to nearly 

$227 million. The personnel increases, by most measures, are modest. We respectfully request 19 additional FTEs. In total, a 13.9- 

percent increase is sizable. I am fully aware of this as I sit here 

today with a Chief who is also requesting a considerable increase, 

and we are not the only ones asking you for more. I wish it weren’t 

so. 

Madam Chair and members of this subcommittee, the men and 

women of the Senate Sergeant at Arms Office and the wonderful 

team at the United States Capitol Police are here for one single 

purpose. We keep the doors of this powerful institution open for 

business, facilitating the ability of the people you serve to come and 

go freely. 

If we are not successful, it would be difficult for the Senate to 

be successful. Including telephones, computers, pages, doorkeepers, 

the media galleries, parking, the photo studio, technology development, the post office, police operations, emergency preparedness, 

recording studio, EAP, environmental services, hair care, nation-
83 

wide support of your State offices, the cabinet shop, information 

technology, education and the training of your staff, services to 

your families, printing and graphics and direct mail, the help desk 

and the wonderful professionals at the appointment desk, I think 

we do it all. The team does it right 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

and we like our work. 

Our strategic plan, completed by Bill Pickle, my predecessor, just 

months ago is straightforward in its vision: exceptional public service. Our mission is straightforward: operational, security and protocol support services to the United States Senate. 

In concluding this portion of my remarks, let me say thank you 

again for the support of the subcommittee. Working with your staff 

is helpful and productive. Our partnership with the Secretary of 

the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) are essential to 

achieving excellence. 

Now if I can just move quickly to the second half of my brief remarks, putting on the hat as Chairman of the Police Board. Let me 

share just a few thoughts. The Board works closely with Chief 

Morse and his Department in assessing security risks and determining appropriate approaches for avoidance or mitigation. The addition of an inspector general presents a unique opportunity for the 

Department and the Board to identify the best business and security practices while auditing the results. But make no mistake: this 

Capitol continues to be a prime target of terrorists. We need to be 

steps ahead of the offender. One step ahead is not good enough. 

Your United States Capitol Police is a professional organization 

fully capable of balancing freedom of access and security, but this 

is no small task and the challenges are many. 

The cost of technology and of its maintenance is high. The stress 

of constant diligence is real. The mission requirements are evolving. The United States Capitol Police have prepared a budget request that reflects the needs of the Department in meeting critical 

security requirements as they are currently understood and I 

would emphasize as they are currently understood. They have been 

judicious in the initiatives included in the budget. Chief Morse and 

his team have the full support of the Capitol Police Board and their 

efforts, especially in determining the number of personnel needed, 

evaluating threats, and maximizing the use of technology. 

Please keep in mind that as the threat environment changes or 

additional mission requirements are added the Department will in 

all probability need additional personnel along with a concomitant 

associated cost. For instance, the opening of the Capitol Visitor 

Center (CVC) is an additional responsibility. 

From the police perspective, this means more doors to cover and 

people to protect. Longer hours of operation for that facility, more 

visitors, or the opening of doors, which are currently closed and 

locked, have the potential to be unfunded mandates. We need to 

weigh carefully the requests as they unfold for the year. The mutual efforts of our organizations, with the guidance and oversight 

of the Senate committees, will provide the work environment the 

Senate needs to make the important, tough decisions for America. 

Thank you and I look forward to trying to answer your questions. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

[The statements follow:] 
84 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TERRANCE W. GAINER

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

to testify before you today. I am pleased to report on the progress the Office of the 

Sergeant at Arms (SAA) has made over the past year and our plans to enhance our 

contributions to the Senate in the coming year. 

For fiscal year 2008, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a total budget of $226,893,000, an increase of $27,642,000 (or 13.9 percent) over the fiscal year 

2007 budget. This request will allow us to enhance service to the Senate community 

by supporting and improving the Senate’s technology infrastructure and to ensure 

a safe and secure environment. Appendix A, accompanying this testimony, elaborates on the specific components of our fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

In developing this budget and our operating plans, we are guided by three priorities: (1) ensuring the United States Senate is as secure and prepared for an emergency as possible; (2) providing the Senate outstanding service and support, including the enhanced use of technology; and (3) delivering exceptional customer service 

to the Senate. 

This year I am pleased to highlight some of this Office’s activities including the 

publication of the ‘‘United States Senate Sergeant at Arms Strategic Plan’’. Our accomplishments in the areas of security and preparedness, information technology, 

and operations are also impressive. We are preparing for next year by planning for 

the major events we know will come and by ensuring that the Office of the Sergeant 

at Arms is an agile organization that can adjust to the unexpected. 

An outstanding senior management team leads the efforts of the dedicated Sergeant at Arms staff. Drew Willison serves as my Deputy, and he and I are joined 

by Administrative Assistant Rick Edwards, Republican Liaison Lynne Halbrooks, 

General Counsel Dan Strodel, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency Preparedness Chuck Kaylor, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations Bret Swanson, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information Officer 

Greg Hanson, and Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations Esther Gordon. The 

many accomplishments set forth in this testimony would not have been possible 

without this team’s leadership and commitment. 

The Office of the Sergeant at Arms also works with other organizations that support the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity to mention how important 

their contributions have been in helping us achieve our objectives. In particular, we 

work regularly with the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the 

Office of the Attending Physician, and the United States Capitol Police (USCP). 

When appropriate, we coordinate our efforts with the U.S. House of Representatives 

and the agencies of the Executive Branch. I am impressed by the people with whom 

we work, and pleased with the quality of the relationships we have built together. 

This is my first year testifying before this Committee as Sergeant at Arms and 

I would be remiss if I did not mention how proud I am of the men and women with 

whom I work. The employees of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms are among the 

most committed and creative in government. We hope to build on the success this 

organization has experienced in recent years. 

None of our efforts would be accomplished, though, without the guidance of this 

Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration. Thank you for the support you consistently demonstrate as we work to serve the Senate. 

Challenges of the Past Year 

Funeral of Former President Ford 

On Saturday, December 30, 2006, the remains of former President Gerald R. Ford 

arrived on the East Front of the Capitol in a formal military procession. The United 

States Capitol was the site of the second State Funeral since 1973 and the second 

in the past two and a half years. 

My office coordinated preparations for this national event with many internal and 

external organizations. This event could not have been accomplished without the extraordinary efforts of many Sergeant at Arms employees who were tireless in their 

dedication to meeting the Senate community’s needs. Many of our employees canceled their holiday and year-end leave plans to support this historic event. 

Capitol Facilities staff cleaned and set up the holding rooms, the Photo and Recording Studios captured the event for viewing and historical purposes, and other 

staff provided behind-the-scenes support. Our media galleries worked tirelessly to 

support the media needs. 

We also focused on protocol and security throughout the week. My Executive Office staff coordinated attendance at the service in the Capitol Rotunda with Senate 
85 

offices, and they assisted the Senators and officials who participated in the program. 

In addition, we were responsible for coordinating the official Senate delegation’s attendance at the National Funeral Service, held at the Washington National Cathedral on January 2, 2007. My security team collaborated with the United States Capitol Police, the Secret Service, and other Federal agencies to ensure a secure environment, and we were a continuous presence in the Capitol Police Command Center. As a result of everyone’s work, approximately 50,000 mourners were able to pay 

their respects to the former President in the Rotunda of the Capitol. 

Transition 

My Office facilitated the change to the new Congress by equipping, staffing, and 

running the Transition Office for newly elected Senators, coordinating the moves 

and setup of temporary office suites, and coordinating the moves and setup for permanent office space both for new Senators and Senators who chose to relocate. We 

installed equipment in the transition office space, and provided administrative and 

mail services, as well as Web sites, documents, and placement services to assist the 

newly elected Senators. 

SECURITY AND PREPAREDNESS: PROTECTING THE SENATE AND PLANNING FOR THE

UNKNOWN

In our security and preparedness programs, we work collaboratively with organizations across Capitol Hill to secure the Senate. We also rely upon Senate Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules and Administration for guidance 

and support. 

While nearly six years have passed since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, and although no major attack has occurred against us at home, the threat of attack remains. Not all hazards are man made, and our contingency plans can be implemented to respond to natural disasters as well. Over the past two years, Senate offices in Washington, D.C. and in the States have been impacted by local disruptions 

and natural disasters. The security and emergency programs that have been developed over the past six years have enabled the Senate and our supporting agencies 

to respond appropriately in each instance, ensuring the safety of staff and visitors 

and recovering operations as rapidly as possible. The ongoing improvement and appropriate expansion of our security and emergency plans and programs will continue 

to be a priority for the Sergeant at Arms. 

On September 6, 2000, the Bipartisan Leadership for the 106th Congress directed 

the Capitol Police Board to develop and manage a program which would enable the 

Congress to fulfill its constitutional obligations in the event of a disaster-related incident. The Capitol Police Board was further directed to coordinate with Officers of 

the Senate and House to develop a comprehensive Legislative Branch emergency 

preparedness program. As a member of the Capitol Police Board and Chairman for 

2007, the Senate Sergeant at Arms will continue to build on the accomplishments 

of previous Boards. 

Our efforts to ensure that we can respond to emergencies and keep the Senate 

functioning under any circumstance have grown over the past years. To continue 

improvements in this area and better manage our security and preparedness programs, we have established seven strategic priorities to focus our efforts: 

—Emergency Notifications and Communications.—Provide effective communications systems, devices, and capabilities to support the Senate during any emergency. 

—Accountability.—Ensure accurate and timely accounting of Members, Senate 

staff, and visitors during an emergency. 

—State Office Security and Preparedness.—Develop and implement a comprehensive, all hazards state office security and preparedness program. 

—Emergency Plans, Operations and Facilities.—Continue emergency planning, 

emphasizing life-safety, continuity of operations, and programs to address the 

needs of individuals after a disaster. 

—Training and Education.—Continue a strong emergency preparedness training 

program. 

—Exercises.—Conduct a comprehensive exercise program to validate, rehearse and 

improve Senate readiness to act in the event of an emergency. 

—Office Support.—Provide responsive security services and customer support to 

Senate offices, committees, and support organizations. 

Emergency Notification and Communications 

Our emergency notification and communications initiatives ensure that we have 

effective communications systems, devices, and capabilities in place to support the 

Senate during an emergency. We have continued to improve our notification and 
86 

communications processes over the past year. We expanded the coverage of text 

alerts to include any PDA on any cellular or data service provider. We are currently 

integrating all notification systems into a single Web-based interface, allowing the 

Capitol Police to initiate voice and text messages to several thousand individuals 

in a matter of seconds. We have also installed a video-based alert system that will 

allow the Capitol Police to display emergency messages on the Senate cable TV network. Over 1,300 wireless annunciators are in place across the Senate, and the Capitol Police have completed the installation of a public address system that can 

broadcast into public areas throughout the Capitol, Senate Office Buildings, and 

outdoor assembly areas. Further, if the Senate is forced to relocate, we have the capability to video teleconference and broadcast between an emergency relocation site 

and other Legislative Branch and Executive Branch sites. 

Looking forward, we intend to expand our telephonic and text-based notification 

capabilities to support office and staff requirements during emergencies. Additionally, our video teleconferencing capabilities will soon provide the ability to create 

‘‘Anytime Anywhere’’ video conferences. 

Accountability 

Accountability of Members and staff remains an area of emphasis in all our emergency plans and evacuation drills. One of our major initiatives this year was to improve procedures for offices to report accountability information to the Capitol Police 

and the Sergeant at Arms quickly and accurately. Significant progress was made 

during 2006 to better achieve these goals. 

In 2006, a BlackBerry-based accountability application was deployed, allowing Office Emergency Coordinators to account for staff remotely using their BlackBerry. 

This builds on the automated check-in system that was developed and fielded to 

Senate offices and committees in 2005. Both accountability methods are now operational and used during quarterly drills. The backbone for this capability, termed 

the Accountability and Emergency Roster System, or ALERTS, allows each office to 

manage staff rosters as well as to indicate who in the office is to receive email and 

telephonic alerts from the Senate’s emergency notification system. A comprehensive 

instruction manual has been produced for use by Capitol Police and Office Emergency Coordinators. A total of 176 Senate staff members were trained on how to use 

ALERTS and Remote Check-in during in-office or classroom sessions. Our staff has 

also trained personnel in the Capitol Police Senate Division on the use of this system. 

Personnel accountability is stressed in the Emergency Action Plan template that 

we have developed for use by all Senate offices. This template, offered to all offices, 

encourages the development of internal communications procedures during emergencies through a phone tree or emergency contact list. Offices are encouraged to 

establish and periodically practice these internal procedures for accounting for staff 

members, post emergency. To aid in this effort, we conduct Emergency Action Plan 

training classes with a special emphasis on staff accountability and stress the initiative during all Office Emergency Coordinator training. Once a quarter, our office 

conducts a remote accountability exercise with Senate Office Emergency Coordinators. During our most recent exercise, over 125 individuals logged in to provide office accountability, and we worked with twenty offices on training and configuration 

issues. 

State Office Security and Preparedness 

The Senate’s State Office Preparedness Program consists of several elements. 

First is the Physical Security Enhancement Program. This program provides a security assessment of each state office, followed by physical security enhancements if 

the office desires to participate in the program. We have completed an initial physical security survey of all established state offices and the results of these on-site 

reviews were provided to each Member. In addition to the physical security enhancements, we have developed and are piloting a program that provides additional 

emergency preparedness and continuity of operations support to state offices. 

Since the program’s inception in 2002, we have conducted 538 state office security 

surveys and will conduct another 76 surveys of new and relocating offices for the 

110th Congress over the coming months. We have completed security enhancements 

in 183 state offices of which 75 were completed in 2006. This past year we finalized 

an agreement with the Federal Protective Service and General Services Administration to streamline installation of security enhancements for Senate state offices located in federal buildings. We are currently working with 60 state offices in some 

stage of planning or approval. To date, members of our Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness have visited approximately 24 state offices where security enhancements have been installed or implemented. Staff from each of these offices has 
87 

expressed tremendous gratitude for the security enhancements and the personalized 

visit. In short, this is a successful program and we will continue our emphasis in 

this area. 

Our State Office Preparedness Program combines our existing physical security 

enhancement program with additional emergency preparedness and continuity of 

operations planning (COOP) support. This level of support includes equipment and 

training and will mirror those programs that are currently offered to Member’s 

Washington, D.C. offices. We have identified specific requirements to tailor the program to the individual state offices based on a needs analysis and risk assessment, 

and are piloting this program with 10 Member state offices across the United States 

starting in the spring of this year. If successful, we plan to offer this program to 

all Member state offices in 2008. 

Emergency Plans, Operations and Facilities 

Our emergency plans ensure that we attend to the safety of Senate Members and 

staff, as well as to the continuity of the Senate. It is the responsibility of each Member office and committee to have the requisite plans in place to guide their actions 

during any emergency event. I can report that every Member office completed and 

filed an Emergency Action Plan with our Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness during the 109th Congress. These are being updated by Member Offices 

now, and new Members have initiated plans. Every office within the SAA and Secretary of the Senate has a completed Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan, almost 

every Member office has a COOP Plan, and the SAA is working with every committee to ensure their respective continuity of operations plans are developed. Our 

staff provides training, guides, templates, assistance, and in-office consulting sessions to any office that requests it. Those offices that have updated plans are encouraged to maintain and exercise them. 

We established working groups to identify and address all Senate emergency programs, plans, and requirements. Last year, we identified the need for post-event 

care and family assistance. Over the past year, we have continued to develop plans 

that provide critical services to affected families following a wide-spread event. In 

cooperation with the Senate’s Employee Assistance Program, we have conducted 

training with a core group of employees to establish peer support teams. That training will expand this year. 

Recognizing the Sergeant at Arms’ responsibility to coordinate the actions of internal organizations, inform and support Senate offices, and effectively manage the resources within our purview during an emergency, the SAA has established an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) capability that pulls key functional area representatives together into a single operational area during an emergency. The SAA exercised this capability twice during 2006, upgraded to a web-based EOC management 

and information tracking application, WebEOC, and conducts quarterly training for 

internal functional representatives. 

Training and Education 

Training helps Senate staff know what to expect in an emergency, how to use the 

equipment we provide, and what protective actions they may take. We help office 

staff create continuity and emergency plans. We conduct training on all of our 

equipment including emergency equipment, emergency communication devices, and 

our accountability system. Our training program is coordinated through the Joint 

Office of Education and Training. 

Training activities over the past year included 351 escape hood training sessions 

that were delivered to 5,132 staff members; nine chemical, biological, radiological, 

and explosives briefings for 125 staff; 20 office emergency coordinator basic and advanced training sessions reaching 130 staff. CPR and Automated External 

Defibrillator (AED) training is also taught by the Office of the Attending Physician. 

This training for 24 personnel monthly is typically oversubscribed. 

Not everyone is able to attend training classes. To augment our training efforts, 

the SAA creates and distributes topic-specific brochures and guidance documents to 

further enhance Senate preparedness. These are distributed throughout the community and describe procedures, emergency equipment, and other useful instruction for 

emergencies. A number of the brochures were updated in 2006, and Protective Actions for Interns was added to this portfolio. This year the SAA developed and provided computer-based training options on our emergency equipment and emergency 

procedures to every office and any staff member with access to Webster. Our computer based training support to offices will continue to expand as new courses are 

developed and made available on-line. 
88 

Exercises 

Exercises ensure the Senate’s plans are practiced and validated on a regular 

basis. Our comprehensive exercise program is structured to do just that. The Senate 

Sergeant at Arms’ 2006 Exercise Program was diverse and productive. During the 

period, we conducted a series of eleven major exercise events in partnership with 

other Senate and Capitol Hill stakeholders to include the Capitol Police, Architect 

of the Capitol, Office of the Attending Physician, and the U.S. House of Representatives. Emergency Operations Center capabilities were exercised on five occasions, to 

include first-ever set up of our alternate locations. We established procedures for 

Leadership and Members, and conducted relevant training and exercises. Recently, 

we conducted an exercise related to the Senate Chamber that included the USCP, 

all Secretary and Sergeant at Arms Chamber staff, and the Party Secretaries’ staffs. 

In February of 2007 we conducted a review of the Disaster Family Assistance plans 

to further identify and develop policy issues and operational requirements and procedures for this area. The highlight for the year was a two-day concurrent capabilities exercise where the setup of four key contingency facilities was accomplished 

nearly simultaneously. In past years, these facilities were exercised independently, 

and this year’s exercise tested our Leadership and Member locations, an alternate 

Chamber, and the Sergeant at Arms and Secretary’s Emergency Operations Center 

in one event. An interagency Joint Legislative Branch communications test for offcampus locations and an emergency transportation command and control exercise 

further rounded-out the exercises that were conducted. Our 2007 exercise program 

is equally aggressive and continues to ensure the Senate can conduct operations 

under any circumstance. 

Office Support 

The Senate’s emergency equipment ensemble for Senate offices continues to mature. Each office has received Emergency Supply Kits, uniquely tailored for the Senate community. Over 448 have been distributed and are being maintained by Senate 

offices. These kits are designed to be used during ‘‘shelter-in-place’’ events, but have 

the functionality to be used on a daily basis if needed. Additionally, 72 kits tailored 

for the Sergeant at Arms transportation fleet were developed and deployed in 2006. 

Over 1,300 wireless emergency annunciators are deployed throughout Senate offices. These systems provide the Capitol Police with the ability to audibly notify offices and provide instructions during an emergency. Our Emergency Preparedness 

Office provides day-to-day troubleshooting support to offices. This has resulted in 

the installation of 90 additional wireless emergency annunciator units in various offices throughout the Senate. Our Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness responded to 197 annunciator trouble calls in 2006. In addition to daily troubleshooting support, we installed wireless emergency annunciators in the Russell Senate Office Building attic to ensure that all staff are alerted of evacuations and emergency situations. 

In 2006, the Senate Sergeant at Arms completed lifecycle replacement of the 

Quick 2000 Escape Hoods with the new SCape CBRN30 Escape Hoods. Our program also added the Baby SCape Escape Hood for children under the age of three. 

We replaced over 20,000 escape hoods in Senate offices and in the public caches 

throughout the Senate. To address special locations and our mobility impaired evacuation procedures, almost 800 Victim Rescue Units that provide respiratory protection in a smoke filled environment have been issued to mobility impaired individuals and their buddy teams. 

We will conduct an annual inventory and serviceability inspection of all emergency equipment items issued to Senate offices later this year. 

We provide other office outreach and support through widely distributed publications and monthly informational notices to Office Emergency Coordinators. We also 

make extensive use of the Senate’s intranet resources to support offices. 

Mail Safety 

The anthrax and ricin attacks of past years necessitated new security measures, 

and our Office responded. We have worked collaboratively with this Committee, the 

Committee on Rules and Administration, our science advisors, the Capitol Police, 

United States Postal Service, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Department of Homeland Security in developing safe and secure mail 

protocols. 

All mail and packages addressed to the Senate are tested and delivered by Senate 

Post Office employees whether they come through the U.S. Postal Service or from 

other delivery services. We have outstanding processing protocols in place here at 

the Senate. The organizations that know the most about securing mail cite the Senate mail facility as among the best. We have been asked to demonstrate our proce-
89 

dures and facilities for some of our allies and for other government agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. When they look for ways 

to improve their mail security, they visit our facility. 

We have been good stewards of taxpayer dollars in the process. We processed volumes of mail similar to that of the House of Representatives and we accomplished 

it for approximately 40 percent of their cost. Last year, the Senate processed, tested, 

and delivered over 13,700,000 safe items to Senate offices, including over 9,600,000 

pieces of U.S. Postal Service mail; over 3,900,000 pieces of internal mail that are 

routed within the Senate or to or from other government agencies; almost 70,000 

packages; and over 136,000 courier items. 

We continue to seek improvements in mail processing and have worked with this 

Committee in identifying avenues to reduce our costs. In April 2007, we will move 

our Alexandria letter mail processing activities into a newly constructed facility that 

will enhance the processing of Senate letters as well as perform the package testing 

that is currently being performed by a vendor. Bringing the processing of packages 

in-house will increase the security of the packages and will save the Senate over 

$200,000 annually. This state-of-the-art facility will provide a safer and more secure 

work environment for our employees and is designed to serve the Senate’s mail 

processing needs for decades. 

We also worked with this Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration to build one of the best facilities within the government to process time sensitive documents that are delivered to the Senate. This past August, we opened the 

Courier Acceptance Site to ensure all same day documents are x-rayed, opened, tested, and safe for delivery to Senate offices. The number of time sensitive documents 

addressed to Senate offices is significant. We processed over 136,000 courier items 

during 2006. 

Since the anthrax attacks of 2001, our office has worked with the Department of 

Homeland Security, the United States Postal Service (USPS), and our science advisors in seeking avenues to improve the safety of the mail routed to Senate state offices and to Members’ home addresses. USPS has installed detection units at mail 

processing plants throughout the United States. Virtually every letter is run 

through this equipment which is designed to detect certain contaminants, thereby 

providing a safety screen that did not exist in the past. 

This year our Senate Post Office and our Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness worked collaboratively with our science advisors to develop and introduce 

the first device designed to provide Senate staff who work in state offices a level 

of protection when handling mail. To date, four Member state offices are participating in this program, and the feedback received from Senate staff has been favorable. Our plan is to expand this program to all state offices within the next six 

months. 

Office of Police Operations and Liaison 

Security and Vulnerability Assessments 

The Senate Sergeant at Arms works closely and on a continuous basis with the 

Capitol Police, the Capitol Police Board, and security and law enforcement agencies 

that support us here on Capitol Hill. Collectively, we constantly scrutinize our security posture, searching for any vulnerabilities, and determining the most efficient 

ways to remediate any we find. During 2006, the Capitol Police Board requested and 

subsequently received a security assessment of the Capitol Complex performed by 

the United States Secret Service. We are reviewing this assessment and will take 

its recommendation into consideration as we fund and execute security enhancements for the Senate. 

Identification Badge Improvements 

In March of 2006, the Capitol Police Board established a task force to examine 

identification badge policies and procedures across the Congressional campus. The 

goal was to increase security, reduce fraud and system abuse, and achieve uniformity of identification processes and practices by adopting a standard identification system for use throughout the campus. As a result of the work performed by 

the task force, several security enhancements were added to the ID badges issued 

for the 110th Congress, including: designations on limitations on hours of access; 

larger photographs; a simpler text field to ease confusion experienced by police officers who must examine the cards; and standardization of badges issued to personnel 

of external agencies. The Task Force’s work also set the foundation for future communication across the Congressional campus when implementing new identification 

policies and procedures. 
90 

Foreign CODEL Support Program 

The Foreign CODEL support program was created to ensure that the unique 

needs and security requirements of Senators are met while they perform official 

travel outside the contiguous United States. Through a coordinated liaison effort between the SAA, USCP, and the Department of State, threat assessments and security reviews are conducted for official foreign travel performed by Senators. USCP 

officers are assigned as security liaison agents for CODEL trips that warrant security. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY—A STRATEGY FOR SECURITY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE

We continue to place special emphasis on leveraging technology to enhance security, emergency preparedness, service, and support for the United States Senate. 

Last year we issued the Senate’s updated Information Technology Strategic Plan, 

‘‘An IT Vision for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States 

Senate 2006–2008’’, and this year we are half-way through executing that plan. We 

have already accomplished some impressive results. 

—Replication of all mission-critical systems at the Alternate Computing Facility 

(ACF) and successful execution of two complete failover tests for continuity of 

operations and continuity of government (COOP/COG). 

—Raising the CIO’s overall customer satisfaction rating to 87 percent. 

—Completion and full operational capability of the Senate’s first redundant security operations centers (SOC). 

—Successful completion of requirements phase and procurement activity for the 

Senate Telecommunications Modernization Program (TMP). 

—Completion of the Active Directory and Messaging Architecture (ADMA) 

project—the largest and most successful infrastructure project ever undertaken 

in the Senate to provide a state-of-the-art messaging infrastructure custom tailored to meet the security and privacy needs of individual offices. 

—Completion of an award-winning wireless infrastructure to support cellular telephone, BlackBerry emergency communication devices, and wireless local area 

networks (LANs) across the Senate campus. 

—Development of a new emergency communications system based on device-to-device communications and not reliant on any commercial cellular carrier. This 

system provides robust emergency communications while allowing Member offices to purchase cellular service from the carrier of their choice. 

Our CIO is currently preparing the annual update of the Senate IT Strategic Plan 

which lays out our technology direction for the next two years. This new version updates the five strategic goals to enhance our customers’ service experience and the 

Senate’s security posture through: 

—Supporting Senate continuity of operations plans (COOP) and continuity of government (COG) by deploying an information infrastructure that is flexible and 

agile enough to respond to adverse events. 

—Continuing to reduce paper-based manual processes and moving business online. 

—Continuously improving our customer care processes using feedback from our 

customers through performance metrics, customer satisfaction surveys, and 

service level achievement measurements. 

—Access to mission-critical information anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances through continued development of alternate computing facilities, remote access technologies, and eliminating bottlenecks and potential failure 

points in the Senate’s information infrastructure. 

—Replacing the Senate’s telephone switch with a new state-of-the-art switch and 

ancillary services based on Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and convergence 

technologies. 

Five strategic information technology goals, and their supporting objectives, drive 

our information technology programmatic and budgetary decisions. There are currently approximately 50 major projects under active project management directly 

tied to the following five strategic goals: 

—Secure.—A secure Senate information infrastructure 

—Customer Service Focused.—A ‘‘Customer Service Culture’’ top-to-bottom 

—Effective.—Information technology solutions driven by business requirements 

—Accessible, Flexible & Reliable.—Access to mission-critical information anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances 

—Modern.—A state-of-the-art information infrastructure built on modern, proven 

technologies 

Another key aspect of the plan—the CIO organization’s Core Values and Guiding 

Principles—defines the organization’s culture and ensures it is aligned strictly with 
91 

the Senate’s business priorities. These values and principles emphasize people, 

teamwork, leadership, and a relentless pursuit of organizational excellence. The goal 

is to have the right sized workforce with the correct talent mix to deliver information technology services and solutions quickly and effectively to satisfy the Senate’s 

requirements. 

Technology for Security, Accessible, Flexible & Reliable Systems, and a Modern Senate Information Security Infrastructure 

We are improving the security of the technology infrastructure that protects data, 

respects privacy, enables continuous Senate operations, and supports our emergency 

and continuity plans. Our efforts over the past year have enabled us to support alternate sites and the replication of information, as well as emergency and contingency communications. We are delivering increased support for remote access and 

are completing the in-building wireless infrastructure. A significant commitment to 

information technology security will increasingly protect the Senate from external 

threats, and the multi-year telecommunications modernization project will improve 

the reliability of the infrastructure. This work all focuses on improving the ability 

of the Senate to accomplish its mission. 

Alternate Sites and Information Replication 

We continue to develop our ability to relocate information systems capability at 

the alternate computing facility (ACF). All critical Senate enterprise information 

systems are now replicated there, using sophisticated storage area network technology. In October, the CIO conducted the second comprehensive test of the facility: 

Senate primary computing facilities (including network access) were completely shut 

down and reconstituted at the ACF. Full capability and functionality were provided 

from the ACF for a period of four hours and then systems were ‘‘failed-back’’ to the 

primary computing facility on Capitol Hill. Like the first comprehensive test, conducted in December 2005, this exercise, which encompassed more applications, was 

a complete success. Funds requested in fiscal year 2008 will help us continue to upgrade the storage area network to meet expanding data requirements and ensure 

we can continue to replicate Senate enterprise systems successfully at the ACF. 

This past year the CIO organization continued helping Member and committee offices replicate their data to state offices and to the ACF through the remote data 

replication (RDR) program. As of February 2007, there are 41 Member offices and 

17 committees taking advantage of this program, with 45 percent installed at the 

ACF and 55 percent installed in Members’ state offices. RDR will provide the Senate 

an unprecedented ability to access institutional data in the event of an emergency. 

Another system which is integral to emergency planning, particularly in the event 

of a mass telecommuting scenario such as a pandemic, is the Senate’s video teleconferencing system. This highly-successful project now has over 525 units installed 

supporting offices across the nation with usage rates in excess of 30,000 minutes 

per day when the Senate is in session. 

The CIO completed the active directory messaging architecture (ADMA) project 

this past year, offering Member offices three architectural options for their messaging infrastructure. Both the enterprise and hybrid architectures provide complete 

replication of the Member’s electronic mail at the ACF. Eighty-five percent of the 

offices are now taking advantage of the COOP capability inherent in the enterprise 

and hybrid options. 

We recently introduced the Virtual File Server (VFS) system which allows offices 

to store data securely on our large, centrally-hosted, enterprise-class storage area 

network. The VFS system, as designed, provides redundancy for disaster recovery 

and COOP and minimizes the environmental and staff burden of in-office data storage. Offices that opt for VFS also enjoy enterprise-level data backup and off-site 

storage of backup tapes while retaining control of data recovery. The active components are located at the ACF. In the event of a disaster that renders the PCF system unavailable, the ACF system will be brought on line and will provide users consistent access to their data. The VFS system has been available since December, 

2006, and already fourteen Senate offices have taken advantage of this exciting new 

technology. 

Emergency and Contingency Communications 

The CIO is providing a comprehensive array of communications systems and options with the objective of being able to communicate under any circumstance. A 

new capability, currently being deployed Senate-wide, is the Senate Message Alert 

Client (SMAC). SMAC eliminates our dependence on any single commercial carrier 

for BlackBerry emergency communications and provides the flexibility of device-todevice communications. Through SMAC, emergency notification lists can be created, 

inter- or intra-office, to push emergency messages directly to devices on the list in 
92 

real time. SMAC and the global email alert system are two of the primary methods 

for the USCP and the SAA to issue mass emergency communications messages. 

This year we continued upgrading and testing our two Senate emergency response 

communications vehicles according to a monthly exercise plan. These assets are 

available for deployment with LAN, WAN, telephone, and satellite connectivity and 

provide the ability to relocate significant information infrastructure virtually anywhere. We also continue to train and expand our deployment teams, and work to 

revise and refine our operations procedures for deployment of these vehicles in support of the Senate. 

This past year we completed the in-building wireless infrastructure in all of the 

Senate office buildings, including the Capitol, and are currently outfitting the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) in preparation for its opening in 2008. This innovative system, which won a Government Computing News Best Practices Award, improved 

signal strengths for the major cellular telephone carriers as well as BlackBerry service. This infrastructure provides coverage in areas where it was previously poor or 

non-existent and allows Senate staff to connect back to their offices via wireless remote computing. The wireless infrastructure also supports every carrier, allowing 

Members to use the carrier of their choice with the device of their choice across the 

Senate campus. 

This year Senate COOP and reconstitution sites have been equipped with information technology infrastructure including telecommunications, data networks, and 

video teleconferencing. Additionally, mobile and remote computing technologies 

allow Senate staff to access and modify their information and communicate from virtually anywhere, anytime. We will continue to enhance and expand these capabilities in order to support a potentially dispersed workforce with the ability to telecommute. These capabilities are crucial to our ability to support the Senate in an emergency situation where the workforce must be dispersed and also support the Senate’s ability to provide employees with flexible work options on a daily basis. 

We are dedicated to providing an integrated and highly-reliable emergency communications infrastructure through a variety of projects including expanding our 

emergency communications infrastructure, integrating and streamlining emergency 

communications capability, liaison with the USCP command center, developing specifications for outfitting emergency operations centers (EOC) and leadership coordination centers, and conducting monthly comprehensive testing of emergency alert 

notification systems. This past year we successfully conducted comprehensive Senate-wide tests of all of our emergency communications systems, upgraded the SAA 

EOC with a web-based management system, and began work on a major upgrade 

of the Senate’s mass communications system. 

Securing our Information Infrastructure 

As a result of information security activities we described in last year’s testimony, 

we have gained a much better understanding of the dynamic nature of global cyber 

threats. This knowledge, combined with the flexible technologies used in the security operations center (SOC), allows us to understand the overall IT operational risk 

present in the Senate environment. Adjusting our own SAA controls, and making 

recommendations to offices and committees, allows us to help ensure continuity of 

government by increasing availability of the IT infrastructure, even under duress. 

In the IT security threat environment, the list of potential threats to our information infrastructure is growing in number and sophistication. Over the next year, we 

will meet the challenge of managing a volatile security environment by: (1) expanding the role of the recently established SOCs; (2) optimizing our current configuration of security controls; (3) improving our collaboration with other federal agencies 

in the areas of incident response and situational awareness; (4) evaluating, testing, 

and deploying new security control mechanisms; and (5) enhancing communication 

with IT staff in Member and committee offices to give them timely and usable information in order to improve the security posture of their local IT systems. 

During a recent four-month period, our most visible IT system, the Senate‘s 

website, www.senate.gov, was the target of over 17 million discrete unsuccessful security events from almost 200,000 different Internet addresses. A recent external security review of the site helped us make some adjustments that will secure the site 

even more, but the site itself is a prime target for attacks. We will soon engage an 

outside party to perform another assessment of www.senate.gov, as we have made 

a number of infrastructure improvements over the last year. 

Similar to security in the physical world, security in the information technology 

world requires constant vigilance and the ability to deter attacks. The threats to our 

information infrastructure are increasing in frequency and sophistication, and they 

come from spyware, adware, malware, Trojans, keyloggers, spybots, adbots, and 

trackware, all of which continuously search for vulnerabilities in our systems. Coun-
93 

tering the evolving threat environment means increasing our awareness of the situation, improving our processes, and continually researching, testing, and deploying 

new security technologies. Because we have very little advance notice of new types 

of attacks, we must and do have flexible security control structures and processes 

that are continually revised and adjusted. Our efforts to cultivate external relationships to improve our overall awareness of internet-based threats have been effective. 

As the global threat environment has shifted, we have modified our techniques and 

our technologies to improve our awareness and response to better protect the Senate’s IT infrastructure. 

This last year, we experienced growth in the area of office and committee computer security assistance. We are increasingly called upon to help offices and committee system administrators properly configure desktop and server security controls. We also assist them in evaluating our weekly reports on anti-virus controls. 

Additionally, we are now monitoring Internet email ‘‘blacklists’’ for potential delivery issues. As the Senate continues to employ cutting edge technologies, the IT security group’s activities will adjust in order to ensure optimal product performance 

and service delivery. We continue to use cutting edge technology, not only within 

our IT security services, but also in our IT security infrastructure. For example, we 

recently upgraded our antivirus infrastructure which will allow us greater flexibility, better utilization of our computing resources, and will enhance our availability and disaster recovery capabilities. This infrastructure is very scalable, and 

we can continue to expand capabilities while conserving on costs. 

Protecting the Senate’s information is one of our most important responsibilities. 

This year we have taken tremendous strides in this area with the development and 

operation of the Senate‘s redundant SOCs, one located at Capitol Hill and the other 

at the ACF. The mission of the SOCs is to identify and understand threats, assess 

vulnerabilities, identify failure points and bottlenecks, determine potential impacts, 

and remedy problems before they adversely affect Senate operations. In the coming 

months, an outside party will perform an operations review of our current SOC implementation and we will use the results of this assessment to procure, as needed, 

additional cyber security products and services which will provide enhanced value 

to our customers. We augment this capability with close liaisons to other federal 

agencies to ensure we have the most up-to-date information and techniques for combating cyber threats. Running within the SOCs, a state-of-the-art security information management system aggregates and reports on data from a variety of sources 

worldwide to help us track potential attackers before they can harm us. The combination of the security operations center, our defense-in-depth capability at all levels of our network infrastructure, and our enterprise anti-virus/anti-spyware programs has proven highly effective. 

The threat environment, as measured by detected security incidents, remains very 

high. For example, every day we detect approximately 1,121,000 potential security 

threats targeting the Senate, over 40 percent of which are characterized as medium 

to high risk. Other anti-virus/worms controls detected and countered 2,181 viral 

events in 310 computers located in 91 Senate offices in just the three-month period 

between November 1, 2006, and February 1, 2007. To date, 136 Senate offices use 

our managed anti-virus system. This system protects over 11,000 Senate computers. 

This is one of the main reasons that recent worm outbreaks affected only a relatively small number of Senate computers while just three years ago, outbreaks infected several thousand machines and caused notable disruption in IT operations. 

Our antivirus products are comprehensive and state-of-the-art. 

IT security is, and will continue to be, a growth area as we work to stay ahead 

of threats and put safeguards in place. We plan to increase both our analytical and 

defensive capabilities. Accordingly, this year we are requesting three new full-time 

employees in our IT Security Branch. 

The Senate Telecommunications Modernization Program 

We are currently in the process of modernizing the Senate’s entire telecommunications infrastructure to provide improved reliability and redundancy to support 

daily operations and continuity of operations and government, as well as to take advantage of technological advances to provide a more flexible and robust communications infrastructure. We are now in the final engineering and design stage of this 

multi-year project to modernize Senate telecommunications systems in the Capitol, 

Hart, Dirksen, Russell, and Postal Square buildings. 

The telecommunications modernization program is being engineered to provide redundancy for increased reliability and availability resulting in a state-of-the-art system of converged voice, data, and video communications technologies built upon 

Internet telephony protocols or voice over IP (VoIP). This approach will allow economies of scale in construction and management and, from the user side, the ability 
94 

to synchronize audio and video conferences, share documents, and collaborate at 

their workstations. The telecommunications modernization program will replace our 

twenty-year old telephone technology, eliminate single failure points, provide new 

capability and value to the Senate, and benefit from the security of running behind 

our infrastructure’s firewalls. 

Modern Technology to Enhance Customer Service 

Customer Service, Satisfaction, and Communications 

Our Strategic Plan stresses customer service as a top priority, and we actively solicit feedback from all levels and for all types of services. The CIO’s Fourth Annual 

Customer Satisfaction Survey revealed another improvement with an overall customer satisfaction rating of 87 percent, up two percent from last year. This comprehensive survey measures satisfaction with systems, solutions, service and the 

quality of personnel in our organization. Based on the survey results, our customer 

satisfaction action plan continues to stress developing strong communications and 

customer relationships, introducing modern technology faster, and providing offices 

with options and choices that tie the Senate’s technology directly to the offices’ business requirements. 

In addition to the comprehensive Annual CIO Customer Satisfaction Survey, we 

solicit customer feedback for every help desk ticket opened. We have very stringent 

service level agreements (SLAs) in place that directly drive the level of compensation our contractors receive. Since January 2006, we have exceeded the 95 percent 

SLA performance metric every month in system installation service levels, help desk 

resolution times, and customer satisfaction. In order to ensure we are communicating as much as possible and as effectively as possible with our customers, the 

CIO organization continues its comprehensive outreach and communication program 

through the CIO’s Blog, information technology newsletters, quarterly project status 

reviews, participation in information technology working groups, weekly technology 

and business process review meetings with customers, joint monthly project and policy meetings with the Committee on Rules and Administration, the Senate Systems 

Administrators Association, and the Administrative Managers’ Steering Group. 

Keeping Senators and their Staffs Informed 

The Senate Information Services program continues to deliver premium, vital online information services to Senators and Senate staff. These services range from 

the Senate’s own ‘‘real-time’’ news tool, Senate NewsWatch, to enterprise-wide subscriptions to heavily-used external research services that provide online access to: 

extensive current and archived news and general information including ten historical newspapers, federal and state statutes and case law, regulatory and judicial developments, congressional news and current policy issues analysis, information technology policy developments, and daily updated directories of government, business, 

and professional associations. In addition, Senate users accessed nearly 2.7 million 

real-time news stories and almost 1.5 million pages of Congressional news and current policy analyses during 2006. The most recent addition to the program differs 

from other online news services because of its unique digitally imaged, full-format 

graphical presentation of more than 300 U.S. and international newspapers available each morning on the day of publication. These newspapers appear on the 

screen as they would on the reader’s desk, complete with photos and other graphics. 

Senate users viewed nearly 24,000 newspapers using this service in 2006. 

A New Information Technology Support Contract 

The final option year of our current IT support contract ends in September 2007. 

Due to the large size, importance with respect to customer service and complexity, 

we began to develop contract requirements in 2005 and issued a request for proposals in 2006. We are currently in the process of reviewing proposals with the expectation of signing a new contract this summer. The new contract will incorporate 

lessons learned during the current contract and stress a high level of customer service and customer satisfaction through stringent SLAs that tie compensation to performance. 

A Robust, Reliable, Modern Messaging Architecture 

This past year we completed deployment of a comprehensive active directory and 

messaging architecture (ADMA) providing a spectrum of options for data management. A great IT success story, this project began in 2003 with the three primary 

goals: providing a computing platform that allows offices to replace servers running 

the now unsupported Windows NT 4 operating system, improving the messaging 

system, and providing offices with choices to meet their varying business needs. The 

design options were presented to Senate offices along with the expected impact on 
95 

each office of migrating all computers, user accounts, and email. We committed to 

and met specific time frames for completing each office migration. Today, all Senate 

offices are enjoying the benefits of ADMA which includes a modern, robust, reliable, 

and scalable infrastructure, built-in options for continuity of operations, design 

choices, and a platform for leveraging modern technologies including collaboration, 

mobility, and communications. 

Web-Based and Customer-Focused Business Applications 

This year, we completed the first phase of a new Senate services portal. Based 

on the requirements of Senate offices and the Committee on Rules and Administration, the portal, called TranSAAct, is eliminating paper-based, manual processes 

and moving them to the web. Using TranSAAct, Member offices manage and track 

invoices for SAA services through a modern web interface and also have single signon access to a host of web-based applications including the ALERTS emergency notification database, package tracking, the metro fare subsidy system, and garage 

parking database. Built on an extensible modern database framework, TranSAAct 

allows indefinite expansion as new applications are added. We are now actively pursuing Phase II which will include many more applications, all available through the 

TranSAAct single sign-on interface. 

This year, we continued support to the Secretary of the Senate through improvements and enhancements of the Financial Management Information System and 

Legislative Information System. Reliance on special forms and dedicated hardware 

was eliminated as a new document printing application achieved full production 

usage. We also provided essential support on an electronic invoicing initiative with 

a major vendor. Finally, major architectural improvements were realized with the 

release of a new database and the addition of a new, modern operating environment 

on the Senate’s mainframe computer. 

To provide more functionality and choices for Senate offices to manage correspondence, this past year we awarded new Constituent Correspondence Management Systems (CCMS) contracts. Under these contracts, we are able to offer offices 

new capabilities and more functionality such as document management, workflow, 

and improved email management. The new contracts also contain strict service level 

standards to provide for improved services and support from the vendors. 

Showcasing and Promoting Modern Information Technology in the Senate 

This past year we continued to highlight new technologies in the Information 

Technology Demonstration Center through a series of well-attended CIO Demo 

Days. After products are tested and validated in the Technology Assessment Laboratory, they are then available for offices to try in the demo center. The Demo Days 

feature live demonstrations of new and emerging technologies. This year, we introduced: SMAC, virtual file services, and a variety of new communications devices. 

Also, this past year, we hosted two more highly-successful Senate Emerging Technology Conferences and Exhibitions to expose Senate staff to new technologies and 

concepts. These conferences are designed around technology themes of immediate 

interest Senate-wide. The two conferences held this past year featured new web 

technologies and the future of desktop computing. Speakers included industry leaders, Senate office staff, and CIO staff. The next Senate Emerging Technology Conference and Exposition, scheduled for April, will feature mobile computing technologies. 

In order to perform technology assessments, feasibility analysis, and proof of concept studies, to ensure we are considering technologies that will directly support the 

Senate’s mission, we have expanded the technology assessment laboratory. Technologies and solutions are vetted and tested here prior to being announced for pilot, 

prototype, or mass deployment to the Senate. To ensure that relevant technologies 

and solutions are under consideration, the CIO-led technology assessment group, 

consisting of members of the CIO organization and our customers, performs highlevel requirements analysis and prioritizes new technologies and solutions for consideration for deployment in the Senate. Some of the technologies explored in the 

lab during 2006 include: advanced video teleconferencing to support distributed operations in the event of a pandemic; virtual file systems, as a remote data application option; new emergency communication products such as new BlackBerry devices; new multi-function machines to consolidate printing/scanning/faxing; and the 

latest office automation software. We publish the results of our studies on the 

emerging technology page of the CIO’s intranet site on Webster. 

OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT: CONSISTENTLY DELIVERING EXCELLENT SERVICE

The commitment to exceptional customer service is a hallmark of the Sergeant at 

Arms organization and the cornerstone of our support functions. The groups that 
96 

make up our support team continue to provide exceptional customer service to the 

Senate community. 

Capitol Facilities 

Our staff works around the clock to ensure that the furniture and furnishings are 

of the highest quality, cabinetry and framing are outstanding, and the environment 

within the Capitol is clean and professional. 

Service to the Capitol community was greatly enhanced with the implementation 

of the first phase of the integrated work management system that was acquired in 

April, 2006. This system includes an on-line furniture catalog, ordering functions, 

and work order tracking capabilities. When fully implemented, the work management system will prove invaluable to our efforts to improve customer service and 

response times as we serve our customers in the Capitol. 

Printing Graphics and Direct Mail 

We provide photocopying and print design and production services to the Senate. 

The Printing Graphics and Direct Mail (PGDM) department continues to provide 

high level service and customer support to the Senate community. In fiscal year 

2006, we responded to an increasing demand for color publications by using both 

digital color reproduction and traditional full color offset printing. PGDM produced 

more than 8.1 million full-color pages utilizing offset presses. Our copy centers made 

over 46 million copies last year. The convenient web-based printing ordering service 

expanded, increasing web-based printing requests to more than 3.3 million documents. PGDM staff scanned more than 2.4 million Senate office documents for 

archiving and expanded the newest service, CMS Imaging, to scan nearly 350,000 

documents, a 207 percent increase over fiscal year 2005. We saved the Senate approximately $800,000, enabled quick turnaround times, and provided convenient 

customer service by producing over 9,000 large format charts in-house. In the area 

of constituent mail, Senate offices saved $1.3 million in postage expenses as a result 

of PGDM sorting over 7.2 million pieces of mail during the first three quarters of 

fiscal year 2006. Working with other Senate entities, we also processed 45,000 flag 

requests. 

After years of planning, the new Senate Support Facility in Landover, Maryland 

is fully functional. We manage a storage area for other Senate offices including: furniture for Capitol Facilities; legislative documents for the Secretary of the Senate; 

general and emergency equipment for SAA IT Support Services; and a book storage 

area that holds publications for distribution to the entire Senate community. Substantial increases in efficiency and functionality have been realized in this multipurpose facility, including a cooperative arrangement with the United States Capitol 

Police Off-Site to ensure the proper screening of all stored material. This facility has 

an enhanced inventory system for accurate inventory control and accountability. A 

state-of-the-art security system provides controlled access to sensitive documents 

and objects. Other features include environmental and climate controls. 

Parking Office 

We completed the Senate Transportation Plan for COOP and emergency operations and developed a plan to increase the volume of E85/Flex-fuel vehicles in the 

SAA fleet. As part of an ongoing project, we replaced gate kiosks on Lots 16 and 

19 in cooperation with the AOC. We executed the leases for two new 15-passenger 

shuttle buses that are ADA compliant and completed the COOP Driver Emergency 

Procedures manual and all training sessions. 

Photo Studio 

The Photo Studio completed the migration of the Photo Browser to the latest 

version of the Asset Manager software. We implemented procedures to store Senators’ photo images on DVDs for archiving and creating index booklets. Additionally, 

we introduced composite photo prints and expanded image retouching and restoration services. 

Recording Studio 

We televise the activity on the Senate Floor, as well as Senate committee hearings, and we provide a production studio and equipment for Senators’ use. Last 

year, we televised all 978 hours of Senate Floor proceedings, 907 committee hearings, and broadcast 1,559 radio and television productions. 

Committee Hearing Room Upgrade Project 

Demand for additional committee broadcasts has been ever increasing. In 2003, 

we began working with this Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration to upgrade and install multimedia equipment in Senate committee hearing 
97 

rooms. The project includes digital signal processing, audio systems, and broadcastquality robotic camera systems. 

To date, we have completed thirteen hearing rooms and have four more in the 

design phase. Room enhancements include improved speech intelligibility and software-based systems that we can configure based on individual committee needs. The 

system is networked, allowing committee staff to easily and automatically route 

audio from one hearing room to another when there are overflow crowds. Additionally, the system’s backup will take over quickly if the primary electronics fail. 

As part of the upgrades included in our move to the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), 

we are installing technologies to enhance our ability to provide broadcast coverage 

of more hearings simultaneously without adding staff. For example, the Committee 

Hearing Room Upgrade Project will allow us to cover a hearing with one staff member. Before the upgrade, three staff members were required to adequately cover a 

hearing. These technology enhancements, coupled with the expansion of the number 

of control rooms for committee broadcasts to twelve, will enable us to increase our 

simultaneous broadcast coverage of committee hearings from five to as many as 

twelve. 

Migration to the Capitol Visitor Center 

The most significant work we anticipate for the Senate Recording Studio, over the 

next year and a half, is its move from the basement of the Capitol to the Capitol 

Visitor Center. This move will enable the Recording Studio to complete its upgrade 

to a full High Definition facility, and to implement a number of improvements that 

have been planned to coincide with the opening of the Center. The Studio anticipates moving all aspects of its operation, including the engineering shops, the Senate Television operation, Studio production and post-production facilities, committee 

broadcast services, and all administrative and management offices to the CVC by 

September 1, 2008. 

CONCLUSION

We take our responsibilities to the American people and to their elected representatives seriously. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is like dozens of small 

businesses, each with its own primary mission, each with its own measures of success, and each with its own culture. It has a fleet of vehicles that serves Senate 

Leadership, delivers goods, and provides emergency transportation. Our Photography Studio records historic events, takes official Senate portraits, provides a 

whole range of photography services, and delivers thousands of pictures each year. 

The SAA’s printing shop provides layout and design, graphics development, and production of everything from newsletters to floor charts. The Office of the Sergeant 

at Arms also operates a page dormitory, a hair salon, and parking lots. It provides 

many other services to support the Senate community, including framing, flag packaging and mailing, and intranet services. Each of these businesses requires personnel with different skills and different abilities. One thing that they all have in 

common, though, is their commitment to making the Senate run smoothly. 

Over the past year, the staff of the SAA has kept the Senate safe, secure, and 

operating efficiently. This Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration have provided active, ongoing support to help us achieve our goals. We thank 

you for your support and for the opportunity to present this testimony and respond 

to any questions you may have. 

APPENDIX A.—FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

ATTACHMENT I—FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT

ARMS—UNITED STATES SENATE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal 

year 2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ................................................................................ $60,051 $64,443 $4,392 7.3 

Expenses .............................................................................. $67,219 $81,934 $14,715 21.9 
98 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—Continued 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal 

year 2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ....................... $127,270 $146,377 $19,107 15.0 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ............................................. $55,630 $58,072 $2,442 4.4 

Capital Investment ....................................................................... $11,711 $17,165 $5,454 46.6 

Nondiscretionary Items ................................................................. $4,640 $5,279 $639 13.8 

TOTAL ............................................................................... $199,251 $226,893 $27,642 13.9 

Staffing 927 946 19 2.0 

To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of security, support serv- ices and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2008 budget request of $226,893,000, 

an increase of $27,642,000 or 13.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2007. The salary 

budget request is $64,443,000, an increase of $4,392,000 or 7.3 percent, and the expense budget request is $162,450,000, an increase of $23,250,000 or 16.7 percent. 

The staffing request is 946, an increase of 19. 

We present our budget in four categories: General Operations and Maintenance 

(Salaries and Expenses), Mandated Allowances and Allotments, Capital Investment, 

and Nondiscretionary Items. The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is $64,443,000, an increase of $4,392,000 or 7.3 percent compared to fiscal year 2007. The salary 

budget increase is due to the addition of 19 FTEs, a COLA, and merit funding. The 

additional staff will support increased demand for services, as well as advancing 

technologies. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for existing and new services is $81,934,000, an increase of $14,715,000 or 21.9 percent compared 

to fiscal year 2007. Major factors contributing to the expense budget increase are 

additional services and locations under the IT support contract, $4,054,000; 

AssetCenter upgrade, $1,086,000; maintenance, equipment and supplies for the Alternate Computing Facility, $1,057,000; increased bandwidth for Senate internet access, $932,000; and maintenance costs related to Enterprise Storage, $710,000. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is $58,072,000, an increase of $2,442,000 or 4.4 percent compared to fiscal year 2007. This variance is 

primarily due to increases in maintenance and procurement of Member and Committee mail systems, $1,500,000; and office equipment for Washington D.C. and 

state offices, $683,000. 

The capital investment budget request is $17,165,000, an increase of $5,454,000 

or 46.6 percent compared to fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2008 budget request 

includes funds for hearing room audio/video upgrades, $5,000,000; data network engineering and upgrade costs, $3,800,000; upgrade of SAN, $2,700,000; modular furniture replacement project, $2,000,000; and other smaller projects. 

The nondiscretionary items budget request is $5,279,000, an increase of $639,000 

or 13.8 percent compared to fiscal year 2007. The request funds three projects that 

support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial Management Information System, $3,958,000; maintenance and necessary enhancements 

to the Legislative Information System, $910,000; and maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System, $411,000. 

ATTACHMENT II—FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST BY DEPARTMENT

The following is a summary of the SAA fiscal year 2008 budget request on an organizational basis. 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal year 

2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Capitol Division .......................................................................... $26,350 $36,780 $10,430 39.6 
99 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal year 

2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Operations ................................................................................... $39,213 $44,372 $5,159 13.2 

Technology Development ............................................................. $38,679 $52,075 $13,396 34.6 

IT Support Services ..................................................................... $79,542 $77,570 ($1,972 ) ¥2.5 

Staff Offices ............................................................................... $15,467 $16,096 $629 4.1 

TOTAL ............................................................................. $199,251 $226,893 $27,642 13.9 

Each department’s budget is presented and discussed in detail on the next pages. 

CAPITOL DIVISION 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal year 2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries .............................................................................. $15,449 $16,457 $1,008 6.5 

Expenses ............................................................................ $7,101 $10,923 $3,822 53.8 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ..................... $22,550 $27,380 $4,830 21.4 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ........................................... $3,800 $3,500 ($300 ) ¥7.9 

Capital Investment ..................................................................... .................... $5,900 $5,900 N/A 

Nondiscretionary Items ............................................................... .................... .................... ...................... ....................

TOTAL ............................................................................. $26,350 $36,780 $10,430 39.6 

Staffing ....................................................................................... 281 283 2 0.7 

The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, the U.S. Capitol Police Operations 

Liaison, Post Office, Recording Studio and Media Galleries. 

The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is $16,457,000, 

an increase of $1,008,000 or 6.5 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the 

addition of two FTEs, a COLA and merit increases, and other adjustments. The Recording Studio will add a Broadcast Technician to coordinate robotic coverage of the 

new committee hearing control rooms, and a Broadcast Engineer is needed to maintain and troubleshoot audio systems in multiple hearing rooms. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $10,923,000, 

an increase of $3,822,000 or 53.8 percent. This increase will primarily fund consulting and equipment purchases in the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request for state office security 

initiatives is $3,500,000. 

The capital investments budget request of $5,900,000 will fund hearing room 

audio/video upgrades, $5,000,000; Recording Studio server expansion, $700,000; and 

chamber lighting upgrade, $200,000. 

OPERATIONS 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal 

year 2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ................................................................................ $16,799 $18,230 $1,431 8.5 

Expenses .............................................................................. $5,852 $6,027 $175 3.0 
100 

OPERATIONS—Continued 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal 

year 2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ....................... $22,651 $24,257 $1,606 7.1 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ............................................. $16,562 $16,665 $103 0.6 

Capital Investment ....................................................................... .................... $3,450 $3,450 N/A 

Nondiscretionary Items ................................................................. .................... .................... .................... ....................

TOTAL ............................................................................... $39,213 $44,372 $5,159 13.2 

Staffing ......................................................................................... 300 306 6 2.0 

The Operations Division consists of the Central Operations Group (Director/Management, Parking Office, Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail, 

Photo Studio, and Hair Care Services), Facilities, and the Office Support Services Group (Director, Customer Support, State Office Liaison, and 

Administrative Services). 

The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is $18,230,000, 

an increase of $1,431,000 or 8.5 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the 

addition of six FTEs, an expected COLA, and merit increases. Printing, Graphics 

and Direct Mail plans to add five new FTEs, including two Lead Data Production 

Specialists, a Reprographics Supervisor, and two Service Workers. The Photo Studio 

requests one FTE, a Photo Imaging Specialist, to support increases in photo service 

requests. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $6,027,000, 

an increase of $175,000 or 3.0 percent. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is $16,665,000, an increase of $103,000 or 0.6 percent. 

The capital investment budget request is $3,450,000. This request includes funds 

for modular furniture replacement in SAA office space, $2,000,000; a networked 

color printer and layout and design server replacement, $650,000; replacement of 

the PhotoBrowser database system, $500,000; and three production scanners, 

$300,000. 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal 

year 2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ................................................................................ $11,930 $13,357 $1,427 12.0 

Expenses .............................................................................. $21,438 $26,199 $4,761 22.2 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ....................... $33,368 $39,556 $6,188 18.5 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ............................................. .................... .................... .................... ....................

Capital Investment ....................................................................... $671 $7,240 $6,569 979.0 

Nondiscretionary Items ................................................................. $4,640 $5,279 $639 13.8 

TOTAL ............................................................................... $38,679 $52,075 $13,396 34.6 

Staffing ......................................................................................... 130 140 10 7.7 

The Technology Development Services includes the Technology Development Director, Network Engineering and Management, Enterprise IT 

Operations, Systems Development Services, Information Systems Security and Internet/Intranet Services. 

The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is $13,357,000, 

an increase of $1,427,000 or 12.0 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the 

addition of ten FTEs, a COLA and merit funding for fiscal year 2008. Technology 

Development requires ten FTEs to support the growing demand on IT Security, to 

meet expanding hours and additional requirements for the ACF such as COOP 

RDR, and to eliminate of a backlog of development projects. 
101 

The general operations and maintenance expense budget request is $26,199,000, 

an increase of $4,761,000 or 22.2 percent. This increase is due to costs to support 

increased bandwidth for the Senate Internet access, professional services for applications support to AssetCenter and TranSAAct, technical support, and maintenance 

and technical support of hardware and software. 

The capital investment budget request is $7,240,000, an increase of $6,569,000 or 

979.0 percent. Major projects include the SAN Upgrade, $2,700,000; data network 

engineering costs, $2,300,000; data network upgrade, $1,500,000; and the centralized back-up system, $680,000. 

The nondiscretionary items budget request is $5,279,000, an increase of $639,000 

or 13.8 percent. The request consists of three projects that support the Secretary 

of the Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial Management Information System, maintenance and necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System, and maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System. 

IT SUPPORT SERVICES 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal year 

2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries .............................................................................. $6,492 $6,834 $342 5.3 

Expenses ............................................................................ $27,217 $32,254 $5,037 18.5 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ..................... $33,709 $39,088 $5,379 16.0 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ........................................... $35,268 $37,907 $2,639 7.5 

Capital Investment ..................................................................... $10,565 $575 ($9,990 ) ¥94.6 

Nondiscretionary Items ............................................................... .................... .................... ...................... ....................

TOTAL ............................................................................. $79,542 $77,570 ($1,972 ) –2.5 

Staffing ....................................................................................... 113 113 ...................... ....................

The IT Support Services Department consists of the Director, Office Equipment Services, Telecom Services and Desktop/LAN Support branches. 

The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is $6,834,000, an 

increase of $342,000 or 5.3 percent. The salary budget will increase due to an expected COLA and merit funding for fiscal year 2008. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $32,254,000, 

an increase of $5,037,000 or 18.5 percent. This increase is primarily due to increased maintenance costs under the IT Support Contract, $4,054,000. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is $37,907,000, an increase of $2,639,000 or 7.5 percent. This budget supports voice and data communications for Washington D.C. and state offices, $17,535,000; computer equipment, 

$10,915,000; maintenance and procurement of Member and Committee mail systems, $6,000,000; procurement and maintenance of office equipment for Washington 

D.C. and state offices, $3,940,000; and the Appropriations Analysis and Reporting 

System, $250,000. 

The capital investment budget request is $575,000, a decrease of $9,990,000 or 

94.6 percent. The current budget request includes funds to help manage constituent 

e-mail traffic and support new CSS applications. 

STAFF OFFICES 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal year 

2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries .............................................................................. $9,381 $9,565 $184 2.0 
102 

STAFF OFFICES—Continued 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal year 

2007 budget 

Fiscal year 

2008 request 

Fiscal year 2008 vs. fiscal year 

2007 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Expenses ............................................................................ $5,611 $6,531 $920 16.4 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ..................... $14,992 $16,096 $1,104 7.4 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ........................................... .................... .................... ...................... ....................

Capital Investment ..................................................................... $475 .................... ($475 ) ¥100.0 

Nondiscretionary Items ............................................................... .................... .................... ...................... ....................

TOTAL ............................................................................. $15,467 $16,096 $629 4.1 

Staffing ....................................................................................... 103 104 1 1.0 

The Staff Offices Division consists of Education and Training, Financial Management, Human Resources, Employee Assistance Program, 

Process Management & Innovation, and Special Projects. 

The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is $9,565,000, an 

increase of $184,000 or 2.0 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the addition of one FTE, a COLA, and merit funding. Process Management and Innovation 

requires one Principal IT Specialist in System Architecture and Integration to replace an on-site contractor providing support and maintenance. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $6,531,000, 

an increase of $920,000 or 16.4 percent. This increase will fund enhancements of 

the Senate’s Active Directory and Messaging Architecture and metro subsidy. 

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you 

today to discuss the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2008 Budget Request. With me 

today is Phil Morse, Chief of Police. 

Before I begin Madam Chair, I would like to thank the Committee for their ongoing support of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. Your commitment to 

their continued and diligent efforts to develop better security operations, response 

forces and law enforcement capabilities has significantly contributed to the Capitol 

Police’s ability to provide a safe and secure environment for Members of Congress, 

staff, and the general public. 

The Capitol Police Board appreciates this opportunity to appear before you. The 

security challenge confronting the U.S. Capitol Police today remains constant and 

complex. However, it is a challenge that the Department successfully manages each 

day of the year. 

Having been the Chief and now Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police Board Chairman, I am acutely aware of the security challenges that confront the men and 

women of the U.S. Capitol Police. The challenges they face are in the magnitude 

of the mission they perform. The Capitol Police stand between those intent on doing 

harm and those they have sworn to protect. The ability of the Congress to perform 

its mission is directly related to the ability of the men and women of the Capitol 

Police to successfully perform their mission. 

The Capitol Police Board works closely with the Department in assessing security 

risks and determining approaches for mitigation. The Capitol continues to be foremost symbol of democracy, a prime terrorist target. We must always be one step 

ahead of the terrorist in order to be successful. This is a challenge because of cost, 

balancing freedoms and the professional challenge of constant vigilance. Security 

systems, and the infrastructure that supports them, are expensive. The Capitol Police have prepared a budget request that reflects the needs of the Department in 

meeting critical security requirements as they are currently understood. They have 

been judicious in the initiatives they have included in their request. They have the 

full support of the Capitol Police Board in their efforts, especially in determining 

the number of personnel needed, evaluating threats, maximizing the use of technology and working with other agencies. 

The Board will continue supporting the Department in its on-going work with the 

recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the new Inspector General. 
103 

As the threat environment changes, or additional mission requirements are added 

the Department will in all probability need additional personnel with concomitant 

costs, space and technology. For instance the opening of the CVC is an additional 

responsibility. Longer hours of operation, more visitors or the opening of secured 

doors have the potential to be unfunded mandates. 

Chief Morse and his team are steadfast in their efforts to efficiently use their personnel. The men and women of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) work hard 

and often long hours in very difficult weather conditions. They have met or exceeded 

nearly every demand placed upon them. There is however a point where we overwork the cadre of USCP personnel, sworn and civilian. 

The Capitol Police have done an exemplary job of protecting the Congress, its legislative process, Members, employees and visitors from crime, disruption or terrorism. I want to offer my thanks to the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. 

They coordinate the people, organizations, and resources necessary to respond to the 

variety of threats we face today. It is an extremely difficult job to maintain a legislative complex that is completely open to the public, while at the same time ensuring 

the safety of the Congress, staff and visitors against increased dangers. 

The men and women of the Capitol Police have my greatest respect. I know from 

personal experience that each one considers it an honor to protect, serve, and welcome our citizens and people from around the world to our Nation’s Capitol who 

come to participate in the legislative processes, to witness democracy in action, and 

partake in the history of this unique place. We have a leader in Chief Morse and 

he is assembling a powerful management team. 

Madam Chair, on behalf of the Capitol Police Board, I would like to thank you 

for this opportunity to appear before you today, and for your consideration of this 

budget request. 

I would now like to introduce Chief Morse who will present the Capitol Police’s 

fiscal year 2008 Budget in more detail. 

(105) 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE 

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP D. MORSE, CHIEF 

ACCOMPANIED BY DAN NICHOLS, ASSISTANT CHIEF 

Senator LANDRIEU. Chief. 

Chief MORSE. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Can you pull the microphone a little closer to 

you. 

Chief MORSE. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the United States Capitol Police fiscal year 2008 

budget request. 

I am honored to have been chosen as the Chief of Police and I 

look forward to continuing the transformation of the Capitol Police 

to a premiere, well managed security law enforcement operation 

that the Congress both deserves and expects. 

After over 21 years in the Department, I have seen firsthand 

how we have changed and grown particularly since 9/11 and the 

anthrax incidents. Through all the changes, the United States Capitol Police steadfastly maintains our core duty of protecting the 

Congress, its legislative processes, as well as staff and visitors, 

from harm. It is our duty and honor to protect and secure Congress 

so it can fill its constitutional responsibilities in a safe and open 

environment. 

Congressional operations are highly visible targets for individuals and organizations intent on causing harm to the United States 

and disrupting the legislative process of our Government. It is the 

men and women of the Capitol Police who stand between those intent on causing harm and those who we protect. 

Teamwork and leadership are essential qualities of a well-managed security law enforcement operation and I recognize the hard 

work of all the sworn and civilian staff of the United States Capitol 

Police who exhibit their leadership and dedication to teamwork in 

meeting our mission. It is these dedicated individuals, with the 

support of the Capitol Police Board and the Congress, who ensure 

the safety of members, staff, and the millions of visitors each and 

every hour of the day, each and every day of the year—without exception. 

It is the duty of the men and women of the Capitol Police to do 

what is in our power to prevent acts against this body and if such 

acts should occur, to respond appropriately to ensure the safety 

and well being of our stakeholders. 

Madam Chair, I submit the remainder of my testimony for the 

record and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 
106 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR. 

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the United States Capitol Police’s fiscal year 

2008 budget request. I am honored to have been chosen as the Chief of Police and 

look forward to continuing the transformation of the Capitol Police into the premiere, well-managed security and law enforcement operation the Congress both deserves and expects. After over 21 years in the Department, I have seen, firsthand, 

how we have changed and grown, particularly since the 9/11 and Anthrax incidents. 

Through all of the changes, the United States Capitol Police steadfastly maintains 

our core duty of protecting the Congress, its legislative process, as well as staff and 

visitors from harm. It is our duty and honor to protect and secure Congress, so it 

can fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities in a safe and open environment. Congressional operations are a highly visible target for individuals and organizations 

intent on causing harm to the United States and disrupting the legislative processes 

of our government, and it is the men and women of the Capitol Police who stand 

between those intent on causing harm and those we protect. 

Teamwork and leadership are essential qualities of a well-managed security and 

law enforcement operation, and I recognize the hard work of all of the sworn and 

civilian staff of the United States Capitol Police who exhibit their leadership and 

dedication to teamwork in meeting our mission. It is these dedicated individuals, 

with the support of the Capitol Police Board and the Congress, who ensure the safety of the Members, staff and millions of visitors each and every hour of the day, 

each and every day of the year, without exception. It is the duty of the men and 

women of the Capitol Police to do all in our power to prevent acts against this body, 

and if such acts should occur, to respond appropriately to ensure the safety and 

well-being of our stakeholders. 

The employees of the United States Capitol Police are dedicated to their work, 

and thus; we as a team have had significant accomplishments in the past year, including: 

—Responding to the Rayburn Active Shooter Incident, the 9/18 armed intruder incident, and the Russell and Dirksen Hazmat incidents; 

—Greeting and screening nearly 7 million staff and visitors, coordinating over 

2,600 VIP notifications from visiting dignitaries, screening nearly 76,000 vehicles and 78,000 individuals at the Capitol Visitor Center as work proceeded uninterrupted; and responding to and investigating nearly 300 suspicious package 

incidents, investigating over 3,000 threat and direction-of-interest cases against 

Members of Congress and other congressional officials; 

—Providing incident-free protection to congressional Leadership and visiting officials, which included five visits by the President, 33 visits by the Vice President, and 69 visits from heads of state; 

—Planning, preparing, coordinating and executing police services for multiple National Special Security Events, as well as emergencies affecting the U.S. Capitol 

complex. These included the lying in state of former President Gerald Ford, the 

President’s State of the Union address, the lying in honor of civil rights activist 

Rosa Parks, Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito; as well as the Million More Movement, 

the Peace Officers’ Memorial Day Service; the National Memorial Day, Labor 

Day and 4th of July Concerts; 

—Developing a real-time backup information technology and communications capability, which will provide critical command and control functionality within 

minutes of a failure at United States Capitol Police Headquarters; 

—Developing and implementing a comprehensive Internal Controls Program within the Department and conducting initial internal controls assessments and enhanced processes to better control and manage the Department; and 

—Implementing a new financial management system to provide better accountability and control over financial operations of the Department as well as implementing the first phase of an asset management system, which will allow better 

tracking of assets and inventory. 

In this ever-changing threat environment, the U.S. Capitol Police accomplishes its 

mission through varied and complementary functions to provide round-the-clock protection to Congress. In an effort to maintain the flexibility of Department operations 

and maintain operational readiness, the United States Capitol Police, with the support of Congress, has made significant investments in human capital and Department infrastructure. We have concentrated our efforts on augmenting our intelligence capabilities and coordination among the intelligence community; hardening 

our physical security and counter-surveillance capabilities; automating antiquated 

security and administrative support systems; enhancing our detection and response 
107 

capabilities for explosive devices, as well as chemical and biological agents; and augmenting our incident command and emergency response and notification systems. 

The initial investments in these important areas were significant, and these capabilities require substantial resources for maintenance in order to ensure that our 

systems are operational at all times. The majority of these infrastructure investments were funded with emergency, supplemental funds or reprogrammed prior 

year funding and now require annual, on-going operational maintenance and life 

cycle replacement. The United States Capitol Police budget for fiscal year 2008 is $299.1 million, which includes personnel costs of $237.1 million and non-personnel costs of $62 million. Compared to the fiscal year 2007 CR level of $255.6 million, there is an overall 

increase of $43.5 million (17.0 percent). 

Over the past several years, Congress has generously allowed us to significantly 

augment daily operating costs through the reprogramming of existing unobligated 

balances. As a result, our annual appropriation for general expenses does not reflect 

the actual annual operating requirements that the Congress has authorized to be 

spent in a given year. It is important to recognize that while Congress has been generous in its support of the USCP through creative mechanisms to provide critical 

resources, these one-time financing sources are nearly depleted. Our fiscal year 2008 

request provides permanent annual funding for critical requirements of the Department and reflects our anticipated annual requirements to operate the Department 

in fiscal year 2008. 

The Congress has made the commitment through resources and policy support to 

create a formidable Police Department with diverse capabilities designed to deter 

or respond to any threat to the Capitol Complex. Over the last five years, the Department has grown in human capital, security infrastructure, command and control, and security and law enforcement capabilities. The intent of this budget request is to address targeted civilian manpower needs and the annual sustainment 

of the Department’s capabilities, which have been sourced through a variety of 

means. From a manpower perspective, the Department is continually reviewing its 

operational concept to determine the most effective manner in which to conduct operations. The intent of this effort is to be as effective and efficient as possible. In 

an effort to maintain and further develop a culture committed to excellence, the Department has engaged an outside entity to evaluate our operations as they relate 

to operational staffing and human capital management. This year-long study will 

assess every aspect of USCP operational sworn and civilian manpower management 

and will provide feedback and recommendations for operational alternatives for 

maximizing manpower while enhancing congressional security. Final results of the 

assessment are expected in October 2007. 

New initiatives in our fiscal year 2008 budget request include additional personnel resources for both sworn and civilian; security for the fiscal year 2008 Republican and Democratic Conventions; funding for the biennial promotions process; 

costs of the transfer of functions from other agencies; essential maintenance and life 

cycle replacement of security and information technology infrastructures as well as 

maintenance related to our aging radio system. The following represents a more detailed look at the United States Capitol Police fiscal year 2008 request. 

Personnel.—The personnel portion of the request, $237.1 million, supports the current authorized FTE level of 1,671 sworn and 414 civilians as well as mandatory 

cost increases for COLAs, promotions, within-grade increases, annualization of fiscal 

year 2007 positions, health benefit and retirement costs and an additional 10 FTEs 

for Library of Congress (LOC) attrition, and 30 civilian FTEs. The new LOC officers 

would bring the fiscal year 2008 sworn FTE level to 1,681, while the civilian FTE 

level would increase to 444 for a total Department FTE level of 2,125. 

Included in the personnel budget is a request for overtime. Staffing levels are 

driven by security needs and are augmented with overtime to meet critical security 

requirements. The requested overtime of approximately $23 million is made up of 

approximately 460,000 hours. There are three main contributors to fiscal year 2008 

estimated overtime increases over fiscal year 2006/fiscal year 2007. 

—Increased pace/workload of the Congress; 

—Support for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions; and 

—Additional workload to maintain security equipment. 

Non-Personnel.—The fiscal year 2008 request for non-personnel items is $62 million to support Capitol Police responsibilities for law enforcement, Capitol complex 

physical security, dignitary protection, intelligence analysis, crowd control, information technology, hazardous material/devices and other specialized response as well 

as logistical and administrative support. 

There are several factors affecting the rate of increase in the fiscal year 2008 

Budget Request. First, in fiscal year 2006, the United States Capitol Police received 
108 

authority for reprogramming of approximately $4.6 million into the General Expenses appropriation to fund fiscal year 2007 operating expenses. This made the 

total available amount for fiscal year 2007 General Expenses approximately $43.1 

million, which was the approximate spending for fiscal year 2006 operations. In fiscal year 2008, the USCP seeks permanent funding for these forward funded items 

as well as additional resources to support the Democratic and Republican conventions, the biennial promotions process, the maintenance of security and other systems previously purchased with annual and no-year funds and to make critical 

maintenance investments in IT infrastructure. The major increases for the non-personnel request for the United States Capitol Police includes: 

—$8,163,600 is for Information Systems.—Information systems increases are related to contractor support for the radio system previously transferred from the 

Senate as well as costs for command center maintenance, communications support activities, licensing and support of new systems, life cycle replacement and 

repair of computer equipment and peripherals. 

—$4,193,620 is for Security Services.—Security services’ increases relate to the 

maintenance contract and other items that were forward funded, and life cycle 

replacement items. 

—$4,641,500 is for Protective Services.—Protective services’ increases are primarily related to convention support for the Democratic National Convention 

(DNC) and Republican National Convention (RNC). The DNC and RNC are 

scheduled for August 2008 and September 2008 respectively. 

—$2,218,500 is for Human Resources.—The human resources increases include an 

increase for the National Finance Center computer programming for workers’ 

compensation and time and attendance upgrades, the sworn promotion process 

contract (occurs every two years), funding for the tuition reimbursement program, as well as the addition of a system module for sworn manpower scheduling that is expected to improve the efficiency of scheduling the 1,671 sworn 

manpower assets that are currently managed through a manual process. 

—$1,358,500 is for Logistics.—Increases for logistical operations consist of uniform 

refreshment, outfitting the Practical Applications Center at Cheltenham, MD, 

and vehicle repairs, service and maintenance. 

—$1,385,500 is for Planning and Homeland Security.—Increases to Planning and 

Homeland Security consist of the security control operator’s contract, which was 

forward funded. 

—$585,400 is for Financial Management.—Increases to financial management are 

attributed to increased costs for the financial management system, continuation 

of the help desk, and contractor support for accounts payable. 

—$177,680 is for Training Services.—Increases to training services include costs 

related to role players for training exercises at the Practical Applications Center 

in Cheltenham, MD and training for instructors requiring certification. 

—$771,700 represents increases to other areas of the department that primarily 

support newly requested personnel, increases requested by the Office of Inspector General, as well as minor increases to training, contractor services, and supplies. 

The U.S. Capitol is still faced with numerous threats, including a vehicle-borne 

explosive attack, terrorist-controlled aircraft attack, armed attacks on the Capitol 

Complex, suicide bombers or positioned explosive attacks, chemical, biological and/ 

or radiological attacks, and attacks on Members and staff as well as ordinary crime. 

To accomplish this mission, the Department will continue to work diligently to enhance its intelligence capabilities and provide a professional 21st Century workforce 

capable of performing a myriad of security and law enforcement duties, supported 

by state-of-the-art technology to prevent and detect potential threats and effectively 

respond to and control incidents. With the help of Congress and the Capitol Police 

Board, the Department will continue developing professional administrative capabilities based on sound business and best practices, while raising the caliber and 

capability of its sworn and civilian personnel. 

The United States Capitol Police must maintain the ability to be prepared for any 

situation. The attainment of that goal depends, in part, on having the right strength 

and the numbers of well-trained and prepared people, organized into an effective 

and flexible blend of capabilities and skills. The Department continues to prepare 

and train officers by holding Department-wide intelligence briefings when significant or critical information is gathered; disseminating intelligence and tactical information in daily roll-calls, and conducting field and table-top exercises in efforts to 

equip officers with the necessary tools to do their jobs. Additionally, the Department’s officials routinely participate in a wide-range of table-top exercises with top 

experts from Federal, state and local law enforcement. 
109 

As Chief of the Capitol Police, I take great pride in the accomplishments of the 

men and women of the Department. We at the United States Capitol Police look 

forward to working collaboratively with the Congress to continue to safeguard the 

Congress, staff, and visitors to the Capitol Complex during these challenging times. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and am ready to address 

any questions you may have today. 

SECURITY ON THE CAPITOL CAMPUS

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. I do have some questions and I would like to begin. We’ll do probably 5-minute rounds 

and just see how the time goes. 

Mr. Gainer, I have spoken with you about this issue several 

times and I want to address this issue in my first question. Too 

many Members have expressed to me a concern about turning the 

Capitol into an armed encampment and while we want to be very 

careful and understand the need to step up security, we understand the breaches that have occurred and why it is important to 

make it secure. 

We also want to balance the need for security with the openness 

that we need to do our work effectively and efficiently throughout 

the day as well as keep the spirit of the Capitol, which is very important, a spirit of openness, trust, and friendliness actually. So it 

is a very difficult balance. When people go into maybe a courthouse 

or they go into another Federal building, I don’t think they expect 

openness and friendliness. But they do expect openness when they 

come here to the Capitol, that they own. This is their Capitol, it’s 

a symbol of their democracy. There is a lot about this building 

that’s very different than any other Federal building that we protect and secure. So achieving that balance here is very important 

to me. Can you explain how you’re trying to reach that balance, if 

that is an objective of yours? Do you share that or do you have 

questions or disagreements about that? 

Mr. GAINER. I certainly don’t have any disagreements. Both 

Chief Morse and I are united in our belief as is the Police Board, 

about the necessity to keep the Capitol open and very viable. Over 

the 4 years I had the chance to lead the Capitol Police, I think the 

men and women went out of their way to be both welcoming and 

helpful even as they stood ready to ward off someone who might 

attack. 

In both of our opening statements, we concentrate on the 

antiterrorism approach, but there will be some 12 to 15 million 

visitors to Capitol Hill, as well as the 30,000 employees for which 

everything is really pretty seamless as they come through. 

I think with the proper mix of technology and making that technology nearly invisible to everybody; with having men and women 

of the Capitol Police understand their roles; and with the Senate 

Sergeant at Arms staff, whether it is the doorkeeper or the appointment desk or the people cleaning the floors, greet visitors and 

make them feel comfortable, we can achieve that balance of security and openness. But we are not going to be able to take away, 

for instance, the heavily armed offices on the Senate side of the 

east front. 

The opening of the CVC, which as I said is actually more work 

because there are more doors to be manned, will increase the flow 
110 

of people and make it seamless as we go in. But we do need to be 

vigilant. 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE SECURITY ASSESSMENT

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. The U.S. Secret Service recently completed a security assessment of the Capitol complex and made recommendations regarding the security of the complex. Can you describe the scope of this assessment? Did it include the entire complex or the Capitol Building only? How are you collaborating with 

the Capitol Police to address the recommendations made? What is 

the timeframe for addressing these recommendations? I’m assuming that some of this review was classified, but what is not classified, if you could share with us, I’d be appreciative. 

Mr. GAINER. From a macro view, let me say that the survey that 

was requested by the Police Board, at the direction of the committees, really covered the Capitol Square complex more than it did 

the office buildings. If we just put that one aside for a moment, 

there have been ongoing and other studies of the other buildings 

and we haven’t cast those aside. As to this particular Secret Service study, which is a classified document, the Police Board has directed the Department and each member of the Police Board, the 

House Sergeant at Arms, myself, the Architect of the Capitol and 

Chief Morse, to put together a working group to review that security survey and categorize its findings into action items that can be 

done today, mid-term, and then longer term. 

Looking at it from a people point of view, a technology point of 

view, and a cost point of view, at the direction of Chief Morse, as 

that study was conducted some issues were identified that could be 

fixed immediately and some have been implemented. There were 

about 200 recommendations and we’re working collaboratively with 

the Architect of the Capitol and the members of the Police Board 

to implement them. 

I brought on board retired Chief Ramsey from the Metropolitan 

Police Department, a 37-year veteran of law enforcement—he’s the 

chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

Homeland Security and he has studied and consulted in Northern 

Ireland, England, and Israel. So I think with Chief Ramsey and 

along with the members from Phil’s team and the other members 

of the Board, we’re in good stead to analyze the recommendation 

and implement as we can. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. I’m going to review some of those recommendations and, of course, the Senators have clearance to do so. 

But we want to be sensitive that the Secret Service’s primary mission is to guard the life of the President and to keep the White 

House safe. The White House is not the People’s House, it’s the 

President’s house. But the Capitol is the People’s House and the 

Secret Service has to understand while we’re very happy to have 

their recommendations, and we will absolutely take them seriously, 

it is not the same thing guarding the White House as guarding the 

Capitol. 

Mr. GAINER. Yes ma’am. 
111 

RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Senator LANDRIEU. I understand you have efforts underway to 

assess the risk and vulnerabilities, including the Senate’s State Office Preparedness Program. To what extent are the results of these 

assessments shared with the Capitol Police who might also benefit 

from the results of these assessments? 

Mr. GAINER. The work that portion of the office does is very 

much done in coordination and cooperation with the Police Department. Several of Chief Morse’s people are actually involved and do 

some of the onsite work. So it is collaborative. When we are looking 

at the physical security, we also discuss continuity of their own operations and continuity of the Government from their perspective. 

We do work closely together with the police. We try to make it as 

seamless as possible. We consult with some of the experts on Chief 

Morse’s team because of their expertise on physical security. So we 

are linked and will continue to be so. 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

Senator LANDRIEU. This subcommittee has provided over $20 

million in funding for telecommunications modernization. While I 

agree these upgrades were needed, I’m curious to know what the 

program entails and where we are with this particular program. 

It’s a considerable amount of money. Why is it necessary? Where 

are we? What are our goals and objectives? 

Mr. GAINER. The telephone modernization program was one of 

the things I asked about during my first couple of days as Sergeant 

at Arms. I had just come from a corporation, L3 Communications, 

where we had voice over Internet protocol and I saw the magic of 

that system, which is used in most major corporations across the 

United States to link computer work, telephone calls and scheduling and meetings. 

I understand we’re about 10 percent into the design phase of that 

program and over the next 12 months the design will be completed. 

The contract was left to the vendor to do that. The upgrade program will affect our telephone switch, the blue button phones that 

the Members use, and the audio-teleconferencing group alert, and 

voicemail systems. It really will bring the Senate community into 

the overused phrase—‘‘the 21st century.’’ 

I know that our CIO is concerned about introducing it, and making sure that the training for the community is available. Again, 

with my limited experience in the corporate world, I think people 

will be bedazzled and wonder why we didn’t do it sooner. 

IMPACT OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER DELAY

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. The subcommittee has spent a lot 

of time over the years performing oversight on the Capitol Visitor 

Center construction project. It now appears that the opening date 

has been delayed again to the spring or early summer. Will this 

further delay in opening have any impact on the operations of your 

office? 

Mr. GAINER. Indirectly, it may be a bit more costly because the 

movement of our studios into the CVC has been contracted out and 

I understand we have to re-evaluate our moving plans because of 
112 

the delays. We are adjusting for that. The delays are actually having a domino effect on the movement of some of our offices to the 

CVC. We’re trying to be efficient in Postal Square, and some of the 

offices ultimately will be moved from there and to the CVC. It is 

something we are on top of. It is not inexpensive. The delay might 

cost an additional $1.5 million or $2 million to adapt our plans to 

the new time line. But we’re aware of the delay and we’re working 

on it. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay and Chief, I will ask you one question 

and then shift to Senator Allard and then we will go to a second 

round if we need to. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

In response to the GAO report on your efforts to improve management, and I know this is a focus of yours, please update us in 

a little bit more detail than you did in your opening statement 

about the status of your efforts to implement some of GAO’s specific recommendations and what your specific timeframe is for addressing all of the outstanding recommendations that this report 

has indicated? 

Chief MORSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I also have the 

same concerns as you do in the information that was contained in 

the GAO report. What we are doing is very aggressively working 

to extract the things we need to work on and prioritize them. What 

has helped us do that is the inspector general as well as the CAO’s 

office are working very hard to remedy that situation. 

We have put in place an internal controls process, which is helping us manage and meet the performance measures that we need 

to accomplish that goal. We are assessing each process that we do 

in bringing forward best business practices, repeatable, and validated processes, so that we don’t continue to go down this path. 

The timetable that we plan to sort of connect the dots and bring 

all this together is really dependent on how well we complete the 

things we’re doing in the Office of Financial Management. 

Asset inventory—we have a human capital plan. We have a manpower study so we are incorporating all of those things into an action plan that Mr. Stamilio, our CAO, has put together. 

Connecting the dots—and we hope to be able to do this, a great 

deal of the most important issues by the end of this fiscal year. So 

as we meet today, we are meeting with GAO across the street. We 

have established a relationship with them. We have put our people 

together in a very cooperative effort to resolve the issues and they 

have been extremely helpful. 

The final thing is, there is accountability and I have put in place, 

along with the Assistant Chief and our CAO, accountability at all 

levels. And accountability also includes perhaps even personnel 

changes. So we are very aggressively working on this. We understand the concerns and we understand the importance of getting 

our management in order. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Senator Allard. 

DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chair, I’m going to follow up with Chief 

Morse since we are on that subject. I really think for management 
113 

by objectives to work, every police officer has to buy into that and 

I think every division inspector that you have, has to buy into it 

and has to work with each sponsor. I think both the Chair and I 

would like to see us be able to do a lot for the Police Department 

but in order to get our colleagues to understand, we have got to 

have this accountability and assurance that things are managed 

well. It is easier then for them to approve some sizeable increases. 

I’m not denying we don’t have some problems there and I think 

you’ve got a horrendous job ahead of you because other people before you have not been that successful in pulling things together. 

So I think you really have to get everybody to buy into it. 

SENATE SERGEANT AT ARMS STAFFING LEVEL

I’d like to ask a few questions to you, Mr. Gainer. You’ve identified in your own remarks the increase in employees that you’ve requested of 19 and the Chairwoman has mentioned it. It is a sizeable increase. I understand that there are issues that are driving 

this—security issues, the CVC, technology. 

When do you see this annual staff increase plateauing and when 

can we begin to say okay, we’re where we should be. We’ve taken 

care of our security needs and everything. Do you have any idea 

when we might reach this plateau? 

Mr. GAINER. Senator, I think we’re close but strangely enough, 

at least for an old sociologist street guy like myself, technology 

seems to keep driving the need for more people. I think there is 

a thought sometimes that when you introduce technology, you can 

remove the person, but when we keep increasing the technology, 

we are adding complexity and there will be a need for more people 

to maintain and support that technology. 

When I went over this budget upon arrival here, I sat down with 

my staff and asked a very similar question and no one said that 

this was it and I can’t tell you that it is. I think as we get the recording studio up and running or printing and graphics and our 

network engineers implement the voice over IP protocol, it will be 

close. 

Technology will require additional people. Having said that, I 

also ask if we improve technology and do away with the human element—does that mean we can attrite those people out or lose those 

positions? And what we are trying to do where increased technology requires more staff, is to train existing staff and bring them 

up to speed. So I don’t see an end in sight. I hope it will moderate 

in the future. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you and I recognize the challenges 

you face as far as technology. At some point here, SAA should 

begin to level off. 

Mr. GAINER. I think that is a good point. I think we will be getting close to leveling off. 

SECURITY IN THE CAPITOL COMPLEX

Senator ALLARD. Very good. I would also follow up on Madam 

Chairwoman’s comments on security, the degree of security we 

have around here. I think most Members of Congress are fairly 

comfortable with a lot of the security that you have to have. 
114 

The one thing that really raises their ire on my side of the aisle 

and I think on her side of the aisle too, is if anybody mentions a 

fence around the Capitol. That has been mentioned before and I’ve 

had to deal with it in my conferences and I’m sure it has been 

brought up in her conference too and that just brings everyone up 

off their chair. I know there is a fence around the White House, 

but it’s not something that would be acceptable here so we have to 

look at other ways in order to secure the Capitol. 

SERGEANT AT ARMS COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC PLAN

Last year, your predecessor, Bill Pickle, testified that the Sergeant at Arms was working on developing a comprehensive strategic plan. Can you describe how your office uses performance 

measures to ensure it is meeting the needs of its clients in a costeffective and service orientated manner? 

Mr. GAINER. Yes sir, I can. In fact, we left at your desk place, 

our strategic plan that was developed under Bill Pickle’s guidance 

and by many of the people sitting behind me. And I will note, if 

I may, on page 11 you’ll see an example of how we’ve taken performance and accountability very seriously and then tied in an example of our performance metrics. 

So we have the main strategic points, which are then broken 

down into the different divisions, and down to section levels where 

those performance levels and metrics of success are indicated. For 

instance, in the human resources section, 100 percent of employee 

performance evaluations will be completed on time. In technology, 

the help desk and computer customer satisfaction will be a minimum of 95 percent, or accurately sorting and delivering mail from 

the Postal Service on the day it clears testing will be 100 percent. 

This is but an example of how we are implementing our straightforward strategic plan to turn our vision and mission into concrete 

performance goals with realistic measurement standards and tools. 

We do take this seriously. 

ROLE OF FORMER METROPOLITAN POLICE CHIEF RAMSEY

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you. I think that is a step in the 

right direction and I urge you to continue those efforts. Also, I understand that you’ve hired former D.C. Chief Ramsey. Would you 

share with me what he will be doing, again without compromising 

security, give us an overview of what he will be doing. 

Mr. GAINER. Yes, Senator and Madam Chair. One of the major 

duties he is performing is a review of the Secret Service study that 

we mentioned earlier. Chief Ramsey, in his capacity of working for 

me and, I, in my capacity as the Board Chair, are the coordinators 

of the Board’s effort to take that plan and see what is viable, what 

would work here, what needs to be implemented, has already been 

implemented, or can be implemented in 30 days, 90 days, or 120 

days and how it may affect the budget. 

His major contribution will be to concentrate on that security 

plan, but also he’s already engaged with the Capitol Police and others to review a number of the other studies that have been undertaken. 
115 

PRIORITIES OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. Do you have the inspector general 

with you today? 

Mr. GAINER. We do have him, Carl Hoecker. 

Senator ALLARD. I would like to ask him a question, if I may. 

Mr. Hoecker, you’ve been on board now since July. The inspector 

generals are the eyes and ears of the Members of Congress. 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. So the reason we put inspector generals in the 

various agencies is so that we know what is going on as far as 

management issues, and fraud, waste and abuse. I’d like to hear 

from you as to your priorities and what you see as the biggest challenges facing the United States Capitol Police? 

Mr. HOECKER. If I can, I would just kind of read from the notes 

here that kind of, in case this happened then I think it will answer 

your question, sir. 

As you’ve said, I’ve been on since July. In these 9 months, the 

OIG has done the following major items. We hired staff, established administrative systems and processes to manage the OIG, 

developed a strategic plan that is linked to the Department’s strategic objectives, we have an annual work plan, which is on track 

and that annual work plan is where we focus on our priorities, sir. 

In October we developed the first semiannual report to Congress 

and we’ve identified management challenges for the Chief, which 

the Chief has factored into his priorities for the Department. 

We have issued three full reports and we have four ongoing 

projects right now. The management challenges, the first of the top 

three, financial management, human capital, and security. I’ve had 

discussions with the Chief on a weekly basis in terms of how best 

I can positively help the organization more up front than consultative type arrangements working on business processes improvements as I’m walking through the organization in that type of an 

arena, sir. 

SEMIANNUAL CONGRESSIONAL REPORT

Senator ALLARD. It is my understanding there was not as much 

substance as we would like in your semiannual report. I would 

urge you to give us more detail of what you are finding and what 

your recommendations are. That is real important, particularly as 

we are focusing more on financial accountability within the Capitol 

Police. 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir. 

CHIEF MORSE’S DEPARTMENTAL VISION

Senator ALLARD. Chief Morse, again I want to congratulate you 

on your position. Can you describe your vision and plans for the 

agency and tell us whether you intend to make any significant 

changes to how the agency operates? 

Chief MORSE. Thank you, Senator. My vision for the Police Department is to build on the very strong foundation that we have 

in place from my predecessors. We’re working toward being a premiere law enforcement agency and in order for us to do that, initially, we’re trying to—or my vision is and you talked about inclu-
116 

siveness earlier and we have put this vision out from the top down 

and that is to instill the core values of the Police Department—to 

be unflinching, sincere, courteous, and principled. 

With that, we marry that up with the best business practices and 

repeatable processes, internal controls and we’re linking that with 

our strategic plan and our business plans to ensure that we’re 

doing the things necessary to take care of our people and to make 

the best security for the complex itself. 

We’re going to be concentrating our efforts this year on connecting those dots and working with the inspector general and our 

CAO. We hope to meet those major challenges that we’ve identified 

in the GAO report as well as the ones that we’re identifying. 

What is most important is the inclusiveness of everyone in the 

organization. One of the things I did initially was to establish an 

executive management team, a senior management team and first 

line supervisors’ and officers’ management team. Everything that 

we are doing, everything that we are evaluating, each one of the 

studies that we are conducting is inclusive of everyone from the top 

down. I believe that meets your challenge that everyone be on the 

same page. 

With that, we’re also improving our relationships not only with 

the community and stakeholders, but also with Members of Congress. I meet routinely and I’ve met with you and have had very 

good discussions. I meet with Mr. Gainer and Mr. Livingood routinely and we also have an effort to reach out to our community 

with our Community Outreach Program. 

So we’re being very inclusive of everyone and we’re being professional in that we’re establishing business processes for everything 

that we do, we’re measuring our success, we’re holding people accountable and we’re ensuring that our stakeholders are well informed of what we’re doing all the way. 

NEW CIVILIAN POSITIONS

Senator ALLARD. The additional 30 civilian staff you have requested include four for the Office of Financial Management. Is 

this enough to stabilize this office and address completely the GAO 

recommendations and complete a full financial audit? 

Chief MORSE. There was a study that was conducted on manpower within the Office of Financial Management and realizing 

some of the fiscal restraints we were being measured in our requests for four. I believe the actual number was eight that the 

process brought about, but we’re working with four. But the way 

I feel about it is we need to get in there and make these corrections 

that need to be made in order to get a better assessment of where 

we are, so we want it to be very measured in asking for people for 

that area. 

Senator ALLARD. So four is going to get you started, but at some 

point in time you may have to have an additional four. Is what 

you’re stating? 

Chief MORSE. Well, there certainly could be a possibility that we 

could ask for more people. I would hope that we would be able to 

instill the internal controls that we need, make the changes and 

put the accountability there so that we get the most effective and 

efficient use of the people that we have. 
117 

CIVILIAN POSITIONS IN OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Senator ALLARD. How many people do we have in that office 

now? 

Chief MORSE. The specific number—27. 

Senator ALLARD. In the Office of Financial Management you 

have 27? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. So these four that come in—what will they be 

doing? 

Chief MORSE. Let me just take a quick look and I can give you 

the breakdown. The request is for two in accounting and two in 

budget. 

Senator ALLARD. Is that going to be enough in that area for you 

to meet the GAO recommendations? 

Chief MORSE. For the budget and accounting portion, yes. The 

additional four are in other areas of financial management but we 

saw these as the priorities to help us with the challenges that we 

currently have. 

MANAGING VISITORS TO THE U.S. CAPITOL

Senator LANDRIEU. Let me follow up with just a couple of 

thoughts here. Getting back to the notion of making this building 

work for everybody that uses it, from Members to staff. I know lobbyists have a bad name but they actually do good work here by 

bringing issues to Members and representing our constituents. 

They are in and out of this building all the time. 

There are tour groups that come regularly and then there are the 

occasional tour group, the groups like Close-Up that every year 

bring thousands of young people because we see them in our offices. Before I was a Senator, I actually came up as a Close-Up student. So I look forward to meeting the Close-Up groups all the 

time. Then there are any number of other organizations. 

Just as an observer, as I’m moving around the Capitol complex, 

I notice particularly in the spring, the March/April, May, and June, 

the very long lines of people trying to get into the building. Are we 

making any plans or do we have any ideas about how we could sort 

in a better way, the visitors? Not to stratify them but to allow the 

people that are working staff professionals, to move a little more 

quickly. Obviously the students and the tourists who are not on direct assignment can move a little differently. Have we ever thought 

about that? Or is it just a matter of manpower? Mr. Gainer, do you 

want to take that, or Chief Morse? 

Mr. GAINER. Go ahead and start. 

Chief MORSE. Well, I think with the CVC coming on board, there 

is a lot of effort and signage and people hired to give direction and 

move people. It is a centralized point of screening for us, which 

helps security but it’s also a much easier access point than we find 

here in some of the buildings. 

We have very tight access points and spaces, which I think contribute to a lot of the slow down in processing. Certainly officers 

work very hard at processing people into the buildings and the 

technology we have is the best in the world. So I think there is 
118 

probably more effort in signage and direction and perhaps even 

some changes in the locations that we bring people in. 

VISITOR STRATIFICATION

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I just want to press this issue and I’ll 

do this here and continue to work with you all on it. Have we developed a difference between a casual visitor and a business visitor? Yes or no? 

Mr. GAINER. Well, there have been discussions about stratification. Over the years, we’ve all discussed the fact that, on some 

days, it seems strange that we would give as much scrutiny to a 

person who has been employed here for 25 years as someone who 

might visit for 1 day. There were discussions about whether there 

would be a frequent visitor procedure, similar to that the FAA and 

TSA are using. But even as to staff, when you start thinking that 

staff can be treated one way and visitors another, we have a circumstance, not more than 1 week ago, where we had a gun being 

brought in by a staff member, inadvertent as it may have been. So 

it just makes everyone pause as to how different procedures for 

staff and visitors could work. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I agree and I’m not actually suggesting that 

because I don’t agree that there should be different levels of security. But I’m suggesting that there might be different lines with 

similar security. Identical security required, but waiting in line for 

a casual visit for 45 minutes is not a problem for a Close-Up student. It is a major problem for a constituent that has a scheduled 

meeting with a Senator or a House Member, led by a mayor of 

whatever town, large or small or a meeting. People are having difficulty getting to their meetings. Now, not to say that students 

should be second class—please, don’t anyone interpret what I’m 

saying and I am also not saying that there should be different levels of security. I think there should be very serious security. 

But as this visitor center opens, I’m going to work with Senator 

Allard and our other members to see if there is a way that we can 

make the work of the people more efficient. For everybody that has 

to wait in line 45 minutes, there is somebody else at the other end 

sitting and waiting for them. Schedules are getting mixed up all 

through the Capitol. 

TUNNEL ACCESS

The other question is, I understand that you used to be able to 

walk from under the House to the Senate and vice versa and that 

access has been closed off. Is that correct, the tunnel has been 

closed off? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. You cannot move from the House 

side to the Senate or vice versa. 

Mr. GAINER. Unless you have an appointment. If there is an appointment, there is a process, that if you are on one side and have 

an appointment on the other side, for the appointment desk, to 

verify that appointment and then let you pass through. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay, so if you do have an appointment, you 

can pass through the tunnel underneath the House and the Senate. 

Because again, I’m just sensitive to the constituents that huff and 

puff and pant into my office and they constantly say, ‘‘Senator, I 
119 

wish we could have been here but we were in line.’’ Or, ‘‘Senator, 

I wish we could have been here but we had to go a circuitous route 

to get to you.’’ I just want to be very sensitive to them and of 

course, the people we serve. 

Let me just see if there are other questions and I’ll turn it back 

to Senator Allard. 

COORDINATING WITH SURROUNDING LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS

Before I was the Chair of this subcommittee, I chaired the D.C. 

Subcommittee and also was Chair of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee on Armed Services and we did a lot of work before and 

after 9/11 to make sure that the Capitol complex and our security 

was coordinated with the D.C. Police, with the Maryland law enforcement and Virginia law enforcement in the event that there is 

a serious situation as did occur on 9/11. Evacuating hundreds of 

thousands of people from this core out takes a lot of cooperation in 

terms of the Metro, in terms of which way the highways are moving, et cetera. Could you all both just give me a brief update, about 

the ongoing efforts to be cooperative with the D.C. Police and the 

Maryland and Virginia police operations? Mr. Gainer, maybe we 

could start with you and then I’ll talk with the Chief. 

Mr. GAINER. Thank you, Madam Chair. We certainly did learn 

our lessons after these incidents. While I was the Chief, one of the 

many things that was done was station a Metropolitan Police officer in the command center, in addition to the ring down phones 

and the constant communications. But that was the perspective 1 

year ago, so Phil can tell us where we are today. 

Chief MORSE. We’re also—the Chiefs of Police in this area meet 

routinely once a month and also we have a telephone conferencing 

that we do, which has developed over time. We have those conferences when there is a threat that each one of us needs to know 

about. So there is a lot of coordination with the local law enforcement. 

One of the things, as you bring to our attention, is not only in 

the municipal area but also Maryland and Virginia. Our radio system, as far as communication is concerned—in an incident where 

we would have to evacuate the city or Capitol Hill, in a critical incident where we need the support of other law enforcement agencies, our radio system does not allow us the interoperability with 

them. 

Many of the State, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies 

have interoperable radio systems so one of my priorities is to modernize our radio system so that we can meet that expectation, especially in a critical incident, where we can coordinate our efforts. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, let me really strongly encourage you, 

having survived through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the total 

collapse of the communications system that existed during those 

natural disasters. Then, of course, we all went through the 9/11 experience here—that that is one of the absolute fundamental critical 

tools necessary to manage people fleeing in an orderly way that 

doesn’t cause panic and more death and injury, et cetera. 

So I really want to encourage you all and I can say that Senator 

Allard and I will work with you every step of the way to try to 

press this interoperability. There are some extra monies being ap-
120 

propriated, as you know, in the other budgets. I know that there 

are serious needs around the country but I think we could successfully argue that starting at the Capitol for interoperability would 

be the highest priority for the Nation and for this region, to become 

as interoperable as possible as soon as possible. So those are the 

questions that I have. I’ll turn it over to Senator Allard. 

STAFFING AND OVERTIME

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two other 

issue areas I want to cover, one on staffing and overtime and the 

other issue has to do with the Library of Congress. We’d like to get 

that resolved as quickly as possible. 

On staffing and overtime, I have been through the Capitol at 

various odd hours, on the weekend, sometimes in the middle of the 

night, at around 10 o’clock to 1 o’clock in the morning, I’ve been 

through the Capitol early in the morning on weekdays and sometimes late at night. I’ve been pretty pleased with the level of security. 

At one point in time, particularly right after 9/11, I think perhaps we had too many people standing around after hours but I 

understood the urgency of the situation at that time. So I think everything has generally operated pretty efficiently from what I can 

tell. I know that there are some entrances that we used to keep 

open almost all the time. We’ve closed those down. 

As a Member of Congress, I haven’t found it particularly inconvenient. I think you’ve used good judgment in that, as long as we 

can figure out which gate to come in, we’re okay. I look in the 

budget and I see overtime would increase 15 percent over last 

year’s level and I’m trying to understand what’s happening here 

that we have to increase overtime so much? What is driving that? 

Chief MORSE. Well, the fiscal year 2008 overtime estimates were 

based on the last 2 fiscal years and what we actually spent. But 

with that comes some additions in 2008 that we just started experiencing here in 2007, are demonstrations. We have a convention in 

2008 that will drive some overtime but what we are doing to ensure that we’re getting the best bang for buck is we’ve educated our 

managers and we’ve made it a performance measure that they 

meet expectations that the Assistant Chief has set for them as far 

as internal controls and managing their overtime. 

The second part of that is the manpower study. We have to ensure that we use our people in the most efficient and effective manner and with this manpower study, they are looking at every single 

process and everything that we do as far as manpower is concerned. So we hope to be able to reduce that and find a balance 

here in the near future. 

But for 2008, our concerns are for the number of demonstrations, 

the increased workload of Congress and the conventions that are 

upcoming in 2008. 

Senator ALLARD. Is the Capitol Visitor Center driving that need 

for additional staff or have you already compensated for that? 

Chief MORSE. We’ve already compensated for that in our initial 

estimates but as operations change, designs change, brings more 

people to do the job and if you don’t get the people, then it drives 

overtime. 
121 

Senator ALLARD. I’m not entirely satisfied with your response, 

particularly in light of the fact that we’ve already compensated for 

the CVC. Maybe we can sit down and go over that, have a meeting 

and see what you’re looking at. 

Chief MORSE. Sure. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS POLICE MERGER

Senator ALLARD. On the Library of Congress, Dr. Billington has 

expressed concerns that the Library is not getting their vacancies 

filled. There are some 22 vacancies over there, apparently. We’ve 

been pushing to merge the Library of Congress security with the 

Capitol Police so that everybody is operating with the same standards and the same level of protection. Dr. Billington has expressed 

some concern about those vacancies. What’s going on there? 

Chief MORSE. Well, in regards to personnel, we met with the 

CAO of the Library approximately 2 weeks ago to come to a number because there have been many numbers out there and 17 was 

the number. 

Senator ALLARD. So there are 17 vacancies? 

Chief MORSE. That’s correct. We have a recruit class, which is in 

field training right now and will complete that April 22 and April 

23, we will be sending 10 officers to the Library of Congress. That 

number was derived by looking at security campus-wide because 

we have not only a responsibility at the Library of Congress, we 

have a responsibility campus-wide. We have to ensure that load 

leveling was equal there and that we weren’t sacrificing any security or manpower here. 

Senator ALLARD. Particularly with that tunnel that we’re putting 

in there. 

Chief MORSE. Yes. So there are some issues that have to be resolved. We’re certainly trying to execute the will of Congress here. 

We’ve identified issues and we have put our recommendations into 

a decision paper for the Capitol Police Board to help us facilitate. 

Mr. GAINER. May I add, just recently, the Police Department did 

give the Board recommendations and the onus is on the Police 

Board now to take some action. We’ll move on it very quickly. We 

have a series of things that we think needs to be done in order to 

expedite the closure of this long-term issue. 

Senator ALLARD. The Congress has spoken on this. 

Mr. GAINER. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. We want to have a unified security force and I 

think the sooner we can get this resolved, the better. I’d like to get 

it off our plate and I’m sure you’d like to get it off your plate. 

Mr. GAINER. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, do you see any major roadblocks in getting this finalized? 

Chief MORSE. The Capitol Police support the merger in that we 

want to execute the will of Congress. So there will be challenges 

here. We’ve identified issues that need to be resolved. I don’t think 

that they can’t be resolved with people sitting down and discussing 

them but I think that they are critical and they need to be resolved 

to the satisfaction of Congress and certainly any liabilities to the 

Police Department, et cetera, have to be examined very closely. 
122 

Senator LANDRIEU. If you don’t mind, I may ask Senator Allard 

if he would, to facilitate that meeting. I intend to push on that legislation, to merge the Capitol Police with the Library of Congress 

Police. It was done last year but I don’t think it passed completely 

through the process. So I think the Members of Congress feel like 

this is what we should do but we need to go ahead and try to bring 

that to closure this year and work out the details. 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE SALARY BUDGET INCREASES

I have one more question and then I’m finished. I don’t know if 

Senator Allard has anything else but I asked the staff to put in 

graphic form, the increase in the salaries of the Capitol Police and 

you can see, it’s fairly dramatic when you look at it here. In 1998, 

the salary level looks to me on this graph to be about $70 million. 

Now we’re up to $220 million in a relatively short period of time, 

from 1998 to 2007. 

Now, 9/11 happened here and the attack on the Capitol and 

we’ve had other incidents that are driving this. There has been an 

increase of the need for security in all of Washington, DC, so I’m 

sure that’s been a factor in driving up salaries, et cetera. 

But Mr. Gainer, would you comment on your perspective of this 

increase and then Chief Morse, about how this is fairly significant? 

What are we starting our officers or what is our current salary 

range for them? And why or how would you justify this increase? 

I realize you all weren’t in charge in all these years but as you can 

see, this salary for officers is from $70 million to $220 million in 

just a few years. 

Mr. GAINER. If I may, I would like to address that as the one who 

was in charge over these past 5 years. To the extent that Chief 

Morse and his Deputy inherited a Department that is not perfect 

yet, I take responsibility. We tried to lay the foundation but the 

cracks in that foundation happened under my watch and I think 

Chief Morse and his Deputy will be better Chiefs, and I applaud 

them. 

But the ultimate accountability is mine. The numbers grew 

under my watch, with the work of the Congress because of the expanding mission requirement. The individual salaries have been 

driven because competition is unbelievably tough in this area between these multiple jurisdictions, to attract these individuals. So 

we have faired better than almost any police agency to hire highly 

qualified people. So that goes to the size of their salary, and, I 

think during the 4 years that I was there, we added nearly 400 officers for the different missions. It is mission driven. When we get 

back to that question, how do we secure it and keep it open and 

make it convenient for everybody, it is personnel driven. 

COMPARISON OF UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE SALARIES TO LOCAL

JURISDICTIONS

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, could you just submit for the record and 

I don’t know, Chief, if it would be better for you or for Mr. Gainer, 

to submit the regional salary levels. I’d just like to know. I think 

this subcommittee would like to know, what the State police in Virginia are making? What are the State police in Maryland making? 

What the local police officers here that you’re competing with are 
123 

making so we can review. I’m sure your Board does that but I personally would be interested in that information if you’d submit it 

to the subcommittee. 

Mr. GAINER. Yes, ma’am. 

[The information follows:] 

COMPARISON OF STARTING SALARIES BETWEEN USCP AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

The Department continues to be a model employer and a competitive leader in 

the law enforcement employment market when it comes to starting salaries for new 

recruit officers as well as pay at most levels. During the past year, the Office of 

Human Resources has worked with other Federal, state and local government entities in several compensation symposiums for market pay analysis. During these 

semiannual meetings, human resources personnel compare job titles and duties, 

entry-level and journey-level pay averages, and share information on recruiting 

trends and separation statistics. Many of these local entities are required from their 

governing authorities/boards to obtain data, to the extent possible, from USCP when 

determining their pay recommendations. The entities that the Department routinely 

works with are Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince George’s County, Metropolitan Police Department of Washington DC, Montgomery County, and others within the Washington DC Metropolitan area. The Office of Personnel Management lists 

the USCP in its 2004 study of law enforcement officer (LEO) pay and benefits as 

having the highest starting salary of all Federal law enforcement entities. It is important to note that 2 Federal organizations, the Library of Congress and the U.S. 

Supreme Court are required in statute to follow USCP pay determinations and as 

such pay their law enforcement positions equivalently. 

In 2006, the USCP matched its entry level officer positions with those of other 

local law enforcement jurisdictions as positions that patrol assigned areas, enforce 

security and protection, assess threat environments, investigate a variety of criminal offenses involving crimes against property, participate in investigations of 

crimes against persons, etc. Positions at USCP require a high school degree or 

equivalent and completion of police recruit training. The data highlighted in the 

chart is the result of the Department’s participation in local market survey analysis 

as administered by Fairfax County for 2006. 

SURVEY OF ENTRY LEVEL COMPENSATION FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE WASHINGTON, 

DC METROPOLITAN AREA 

Police Organization Position Match 2006 Min Mid Max Average 

Actual 

No. in Survey Pool 

Alexandria ....................... Police Officer I .......................... 43.0 57.1 71.1 45.1 89 

Arlington .......................... Police Officer I .......................... 44.6 59.2 73.8 46.8 58 

Capitol Police .................. Private-Priv w/Training-PFC ...... 48.4 67.8 87.1 51.0 99 

District of Columbia ....... Police Recruit ............................ 46.4 57.5 68.5 ................ ................

Loudoun ........................... Deputy I (Field/Civil Process/ 

Community Policing).

40.3 52.4 64.5 47.7 54 

Montgomery ..................... Police Officer I .......................... 41.6 55.7 69.7 44.5 115 

Prince George’s ............... Police Officer ............................. 44.1 52.6 61.1 46.0 442 

Prince William ................. Police Officer I .......................... 39.3 51.1 62.9 41.4 80 

Fairfax County ................. O–17–2 ..................................... 44.4 58.4 72.4 52.1 253 

USCP competes in various labor markets with state and local governments for individuals with law enforcement skills. As a result of the September 2001 terrorist 

attacks, the Department and its stakeholders were most concerned about its ability 

to recruit and retain high-quality personnel for its LEO positions. Central to those 

concerns was the level of pay the Department was compensating its officers as compared to those of other Federal LEO positions, as well as state and local government 

positions. The Department was provided with authority and funding to increase the 

base pay structure of all law enforcement positions sufficient to recruit a significant 

number of new officers, as well as retain more seasoned officers to ensure institutional knowledge and experience needed to address Congressional concerns for an 

enhanced security and protection environment. The decision to increase the USCP 

pay structure placed USCP on average 4 percent above the market in which it competes. 

An important factor to consider in comparing the compensation of USCP law enforcement personnel with state and local entities is the extent to which other com-
124 

pensation factors into total compensation. For example, Montgomery County, as others, compensates new officers for Assignment Pay Differentials such as Hazardous 

Materials, Language Pay, etc. While USCP received authority and has implemented 

its Specialty Pay Program, it is typically not for new recruit officers. 

In addition, USCP law enforcement positions that earn compensation for overtime 

work do so without the earnings being contributed to their retirement or 401K savings programs. Depending on authorities for other Federal, state and local government organizations, individuals working overtime can receive credit for retirement 

and 401K benefits. One significant difference in the payment of premium pay (non 

base pay) for USCP personnel as compared to state and local government is the limitation on the accumulation of differentials. USCP personnel are capped on the total 

amount of premium pay differentials earned on a bi-weekly basis. While the USCP 

has the highest biweekly limitation on premium pay for its non-exempt sworn workforce compared to Federal organizations, state and local governments typically do 

not limit the accumulation of differential pay, just the limitation on aggregate pay. 

Much work has been accomplished in reviewing compensation in the Federal and 

state and local government law enforcement community. Most recently, in August 

2005, the Congressional Budget Office published its report, ‘‘Comparing the Pay of 

Federal and Nonfederal Law Enforcement Officers,’’ which describes the competitive 

environment for recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers. USCP has used 

this report to remain pay competitive in terms of looking at the total compensation 

package. Statistically, the critical period for USCP to achieve a return on recruiting 

and training investment for new recruit officers is after the first 3 years. The progression of pay during the first 3–5 years is critical to the retention of a deployable 

workforce. Upon promotion from Private, Private with Training and Private First 

Class (typically after 30 months), individuals are limited in seeking other employment as their salary in the grade is significantly higher than most Federal and state 

and local governments and to leave USCP service would typically result in a decrease in pay and law enforcement service credit. Service under USCP as a law enforcement officer is not creditable service under other Federal LEO retirement systems. In order for an LEO to leave USCP for other Federal service, he/she would 

have to start over their retirement service credit. 

USCP recognizes that other law enforcement entities deploy attractive recruitment strategies designed to capture high quality and Federally trained (at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) individuals. The Department has not experienced a significant increase in attrition such that it would require the department 

to offer recruitment bonuses. While USCP has had several individuals leave USCP 

service for other Federal, state and local government employment; their responses 

on exit surveys indicate that compensation was not a significant factor in their decision to leave the Department, but rather individuals indicated their decisions to 

leave were for personal and/or professional reasons. 

Although USCP starting salary and benefits are competitive with local agencies, 

the potential for ‘‘moonlighting’’ (outside security officer employment) and other benefits offered by local law enforcement agencies might also factor into the equation 

and equalize the difference in compensation. Educational benefits and recruiting/retention bonuses offered by local, state and some Federal law enforcement agencies, 

may also prove to be a better draw for LEOs than the initial higher salary rate. 

Also, the USCP may not be as competitive with uniformed services in other federal 

law enforcement agencies. The Department competes strongly with the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Secret Service under the Department of 

Homeland Security that offer a career ladder for higher paying investigative and 

LEO positions. In some circumstances, these agencies are able to offer opportunities 

for advancement and relocation. This career potential may outweigh the higher beginning salary for recruits who are planning their careers more long term. 

Another factor to consider in measuring salary competitiveness in the Federal 

arena is that many Federal criminal investigators and other LEOs regularly receive 

a 25 percent supplement for overtime work—either administratively uncontrollable 

overtime (AUO) pay or law enforcement availability pay. While this supplement is 

a stable addition to salary, it is appropriately not included in salary comparisons, 

which compare non-overtime salary rates. Providing a virtually guaranteed 25 percent supplement gives the Federal Government a competitive advantage over USCP 

who does not guarantee such an overtime supplement. 

USCP believes most job seekers give great weight to the total regular pay they 

would receive in a job, since it is that total pay that determines their standard of 

living. While the value of AUO pay and availability pay may not be as great as the 

overtime rates paid by non-Federal employers on an hourly basis, those supplements are highly valued as stable additions to salary. Furthermore, since the AUO 

pay and availability pay received by non-USCP LEOs is creditable as basic pay in 
125 

determining retirement and certain other benefits, the value of these payments is 

even greater. For example, an availability pay recipient will receive a defined benefit pension that is 25 percent higher than another employee at the same salary 

level. Also, Thrift Savings Plan holdings will be proportionally larger as an availability pay recipient is entitled to a larger Government match than another employee at the same salary level. 

When establishing recruiting and compensation strategies for the Department, 

USCP strives to remain competitive given the unique security and protection environment our employees serve. It is important that our recruiting and pay systems 

reflect the significant mission and objectives that are fundamental to the principles 

of the Department. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator Allard? 

Senator ALLARD. Well, just one additional comment in that regard. I’ve been told that we’re the highest paid police force in the 

country. I’d like to look at those figures, in comparison to other police forces. 

Mr. GAINER. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator LANDRIEU. Any additional questions from Members will 

be submitted to you for response in the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

SWORN STAFFING

Question. USCP’s Manpower Management Task Force conducted an internal manpower study. The goal of that study was to develop a staffing plan for efficiently 

managing and allocating resources based on threat. This study was completed a couple of months ago. 

How is USCP using the results that study? 

To what extent is the contractor using the results of the internal manpower 

study? 

What recommendations were made in the study regarding allocating resources 

based on the threat? 

Does USCP plan to implement the recommendations from this study? If not, what 

is USCP’s reason(s) for not implementing them? 

USCP hired a contractor (Enlightened Leadership Solutions) to conduct a manpower study of USCP’s sworn staff. How will USCP ensure that it will receive useful 

results from this study, and how will this study enable USCP to develop and implement the congressionally mandated strategic workforce plan? 

Answer. A high level review of the task force report has been accomplished by the 

USCP and appropriate recommendations provided to ELS for consideration in the 

overall manpower study. Other recommendations have been implemented based on 

our threat assessment and operational needs. The Department is working, with 

close support from ELS, to ensure that the broader recommendations of the task 

force report are considered. Senior management receives regular updates from ELS 

and provides course corrections as necessary to ensure useful results are obtained 

from the study. ELS will deliver a staffing formula for sworn officers based on our 

current and proposed concept of operations, which is based on the threat matrix. 

In effect, the USCP implements a force development process that utilizes the threat 

assessment to define the needs of the Concept of Operations in order to make resource decisions. The ELS study will also help to provide a methodology for the 

USCP to make future manpower requirement decisions and lend credible foundation 

for its manpower levels. This study addresses the guidance we have received in our 

close working relationship with GAO. This process will also lead to the eventual development of the strategic workforce plan, as mandated by Congress. This process 

will also lead to the development of future training plans, technology investment 

plans and other operational and support decisions. 
126 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Question. Will USCP be able to prepare a fiscal year 2006 balance sheet with complete and accurate asset and inventory balances that will pass an audit? 

Answer. For fiscal year 2006, USCP will be generating a SBR, and for the first 

time, a draft Balance Sheet utilizing Generally Accepted Accounting Principles applicable to federal entities. USCP will generate a full set of financial statements for 

fiscal year 2007, with the completion of the inventory process. 

The USCP had planned to prepare a full-set of draft financial statements at the 

conclusion of fiscal year 2006; however the completion of the USCP inventory, which 

was required to validate asset balances, was delayed to April 2007. The USCP has 

prepared a draft Balance Sheet for 2006, but does not expect that the independent 

auditor will be able to validate all asset balances and would not expect a ‘‘clean’’ 

opinion on the Balance Sheet for fiscal year 2006. 

Question. When was the physical inventory count originally scheduled to be completed? How far behind schedule is this effort? What is the current estimated completion date? Will the inventory count be completed in time for the data to be included in the financial statements for fiscal year 2006? If not, why? 

Answer. In the statement of work, the physical inventory count, to include the actual count of assets owned by USCP and the valuation of these assets, had a projected completion date by March 31, 2007. Since that time, the contractor requested 

a thirty-day extension at no additional cost to ensure that they have adequate time 

to provide accurate data. 

Currently, this effort is on schedule (including the thirty-day extension) and baring any unforeseen circumstances, will be completed by April 30, 2007. Once the 

contractor has presented all data, there are additional steps needed to complete the 

reconciliation. These steps include the review and acceptance, by the independent 

auditors, of the valuation of the USCP assets, researching and identifying the documentation that supports the valuation of each asset and final reconciliation with the 

financial statements presented by the Office of Financial Management. The current 

estimated completion date for the physical inventory count, to include the valuation 

of all assets done by the contractor, is estimated to be completed on April 30, 2007. 

This does not include the review and acceptance of the data by the independent 

auditors. 

The inventory count will not be completed in time to be included in the fiscal year 

2006 financial statements. At the conclusion of the count, USCP estimates approximately three million assets and consumables that will be identified as a result of 

the count. Once that information has been reviewed and approved, the formal validation and documentation of the inventory will be conducted. This work will not be 

completed in time for the fiscal year 2006 audit. 

Question. What issues has USCP encountered as a result of efforts to complete 

a first-time agencywide inventory effort? Was the agency prepared to take on such 

a monumental task at the same time while implementing other agency wide initiatives (internal control program, implementation of new asset management system, 

etc.) 

Answer. We have discovered through the inventory process that USCP has a wide 

array of assets distributed throughout multiple locations. Locating and identifying 

ownership of these assets has been a much bigger challenge than originally anticipated. 

The process was unexpectedly slowed by having to coordinate with the inventory 

contractor, the independent auditors and USCP property custodians within each division to ensure that all assets were being properly identified and captured. 

Many of these assets are constantly in use. Although legacy systems still remain 

to keep track of assets until collected data is uploaded into the Maximo database, 

there still remains a challenge. Specifically, that the movement of assets could possibly be overlooked; thus, compromising the effort of the count. Until the final transition, this will continue to be followed closely to mitigate issues. 

Completion of the physical inventory is an integral step in producing a Department balance sheet, as recommended by Congress and GAO. Completion of a balance sheet is a priority for the USCP and is part of the Department’s fiscal year 

2007 business plan. In addition, Senate Report 109–267 directed the USCP to prepare a plan to move to a full-scope financial audit for fiscal year 2007. Although 

the language was not included in the final fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the 

USCP, the Department took the direction very seriously. Considering the time required to complete such an inventory, it was prudent to begin procuring contract 

support for this task in fiscal year 2006. The contract was awarded on September 

30, 2006. The inventory project began on Monday, October 30, 2006, and proceeded 

forward as scheduled. As of Friday, March 16, 2007, the inventory project has com-
127 

pleted 75 percent of USCP sites, with all data loaded into the asset management 

system. 

Once the contractor has presented all data, there are additional steps needed to 

complete the reconciliation. These steps include the review and acceptance, by the 

independent auditors, of the valuation of the USCP assets, researching and identifying documentation that supports the valuation of each asset and final reconciliation with the information maintained by the Office of Financial Management. 

This project represents a cross-cutting working coordination between Property and 

Asset Management Division, the Office of Logistics, the Office of Financial Management, the Office of Information Systems, the Office of the Inspector General, and 

the auditing firm of Cotton and Company. We project that, without any unforeseen 

issues in the future, this project will be completed to the fulfillment of the Senate 

direction. 

Question. What are your plans to assess the effectiveness and validity of Momentum’s processing within the unique environment at USCP? For instance, whether 

the electronic controls in place are performing as intended and ensuring the operating effectiveness of the USCP system and internal control environment? 

Answer. The external auditors have not yet completed their assessment of Momentum automated controls to provide assurance the system is working efficiently 

and effectively. This assurance is expected with the completion of the financial 

statement audit that is currently on-going. 

Per the GAO report, the auditors acknowledged that the controls might be better 

with the implementation of Momentum. 

The USCP has also performed several Momentum reviews as part of its internal 

control Program. These reviews provide assurance that the system is working as designed and that proper segregation of duties and compensating controls exist. GAO 

did not review these internal reviews. 

The USCP will continue to work with GAO and the auditors to ensure Momentum 

operates as efficiently as possible. 

USCP will continue to make Momentum controls a top priority as the Department 

moves forward with its Internal Control Program. 

Question. We understand that you recently conducted a user satisfaction survey 

(customer survey). What are some of the actual concerns highlighted by Momentum 

users? Going forward, how do you plan to address those concerns? 

Answer. The USCP implemented the Momentum financial management system in 

a 12-month period, with few technical implementation issues. 

However, with any significant change in business processes, change management 

and effective communications with users of the system are critical. 

Prior to the implementation of Momentum, the USCP operated under a paper-intensive workflow process that required no system input from most of USCP’s administrative staff. 

Momentum introduced cutting-edge technology that required users, who had 

never interfaced with a financial management system to enter data, scan documents 

and provide approval paths for transactions, as well as, verify funds availability 

within an automated system. This proved to be the biggest challenge to the system 

implementation. 

In order to address these issues, the USCP made a significant investment in 

training to ensure all users had/have the skill sets required to operate this new 

technology. We offered a cadre of 21 courses to all users of the system covering the 

basics of data entry and approval processes prior to implementation, refresher 

courses after implementation as well as segments on procurement policy and processes, a 2 day course on appropriations law, and a 2 day course on internal controls 

to ensure that staff had the necessary tools to process transactions appropriately in 

the system and within the confines of our appropriation and applicable law. 

Momentum provides customer access to real-time enhanced reporting and access 

to data (including real-time budget updates) for users at all levels of the organization via online queries, reporting and accessibility to data. 

Momentum supports such internal control principles as segregation of duties and 

delegation of authority. USCP has strengthened internal controls with the use of 

automated workflow and on-line approvals. This best business practice has dramatically improved controls, has enabled better management and tracking of our procurement processes and allowed for better requisition tracking and has significantly 

reduced the paper-intensive processes of the past while improving efficiency. 

USCP has now been operating successfully with Momentum for over 17 months. 

This is the same software utilized at over 80 federal agencies, including several legislative branch agencies. 
128 

Inherent with any commercial off-the-shelf package, software issues arise. USCP 

prioritizes and tracks open issues with the software owner to ensure issues are fixed 

timely. 

Recent surveys of Momentum users completed by USCP indicate that the vast 

majority of system users indicate that they understand and are able to complete 

their financial management responsibilities with the Momentum system. 

Question. USCP developed a 2-year plan to implement a first-ever agencywide internal control program. Is USCP on target with its phased-approach? What are 

some of the expected and unexpected issues that USCP has encountered? 

Answer. The Department is on target. According to GAO, USCP has taken some 

strong first steps. These steps include providing training to a significant number of 

leaders and managers, developing a Control Environment Assessment, developing a 

plan/schedule for conducting assessments, engaging an Internal Control Working 

Group and Review Board in an on-going evaluation of how to improve the process— 

linking it to other management improvement efforts, and integrating the work into 

the Business Planning System. This year, we will be spreading the internal controls 

program throughout the Department, and one of the most important ways we are 

facilitating that is by incorporating internal controls analysis into the work of the 

Manpower Study Project. In addition, the USCP participates in the Legislative 

Branch Financial Managers Council internal controls group to learn and share internal control methodologies with other Legislative Branch agencies. 

Following GAO’s lead, we used an organizational development approach to implement an internal controls program. This approach (using team leadership, integrating this program with an ongoing management improvement program) helped 

us overcome the expected issues related to building ownership, commitment, and 

changing the organizational culture to see internal controls as a tool for application, 

daily. 

Accomplishing such a major change in business process without the funding normally attached for maximizing return on investment was an unexpected issue. The 

risk for sub-optimizing such a key investment will be greater in the out-years and 

so we will ensure that the ELS Manpower Study accurately captures the degree of 

time and expertise required to sustain the progress in decreasing vulnerabilities. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LANDRIEU. If there are no further questions, this subcommittee will stand in recess until April 13 when we’ll meet to 

take testimony on the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Secretary of the Senate and the Library of Congress. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., Friday, March 30, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(129) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu and Allard. 

U.S. SENATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY ERICKSON, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

SHEILA DWYER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

CHRIS DOBY, FINANCIAL CLERK 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Good morning. The subcommittee will come 

to order. 

This morning we meet to take testimony on the fiscal year 2008 

budget request for the Secretary of the Senate and the Library of 

Congress (LOC). Nancy Erickson is with us this morning, and the 

Librarian of Congress, Dr. Billington. 

This is our fourth and final hearing of the 2008 budget process. 

I am joined this morning by my ranking member, Senator Allard, 

and I understand that Senator Alexander may join us this morning. 

We have two separate panels today. First, the Secretary of the 

Senate, and I understand she may be joined by Sheila Dwyer, the 

Assistant Secretary and the Financial Clerk of the Senate, Chris 

Doby. 

Mr. Doby, while we’re on the subject of your shop and the Disbursing Office, I asked my office manager if she could give me a 

list of some of the people from the Disbursing Office who’ve been 

helpful. She gave me a list too long to read this morning, so I’m 

going to just submit it for the record and thank you very much for 

the help of your wonderful staff. We really appreciate it. 

[The information follows:] 

Chris Doby, Financial Clerk, Tim O’Keefe, Margaret Fibel, Neil Elliott, Gerry 

Thrasher, Melissa Stewart, Paul Jochum, LaKisha Haggerty, Ivan Shnider, Bob 
130 

Millett, Kim Cone, Ileanexis Deese, Ted Ruckner, Sean Malloy, Debbie Shnider, 

Gene Barton, Linda Sothern, Martin Tanabe, Donna Nance, Rachel Morris, Monica 

Billups, Cathy Strodel, Lauren Bliss, Dianna Gilkerson, and Cynthia Handwork. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I also want to thank all of your other employees. Nancy, I think this is the first time you’ve testified before this 

subcommittee as the Secretary. We’re pleased to have you this 

morning. We’ll look forward to hearing the details of your budget, 

which totals $25.5 million. This is an increase of $2.5 million, or 

11 percent above the current year. So, we hope that you’re prepared to justify the request that you have submitted to us, because 

while it’s not exorbitant, it is higher than inflation and we look forward to hearing from you about that. 

I’d like to turn now to Senator Allard for his opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’d like to put 

my full statement in the record and proceed to the testimony from 

the witnesses. 

I’d like to personally welcome Secretary of the Senate, Nancy 

Erickson, thank you for being here, and also, Dr. Billington. 

I will have a few questions on the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) as a result of the inspector general study on 

performance-based budgeting at the Library, and maybe another 

question or two on the Library. 

Madam Chairman, that’s all I have. Just put my full statement 

in the record if you would please. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Without objection. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson, 

Assistant Secretary Sheila Dwyer, Senate Financial Clerk Chris Doby, and their 

very able team. 

Also, good morning to Librarian of Congress Dr. James Billington and Chief Operating Office Jo Ann Jenkins. Congratulations, Ms. Jenkins, on your appointment as 

the Library’s ‘‘number 2,’’ a well-earned appointment. I also note the presence of the 

Library’s top team and welcome them all today. 

Madam Chairman, I have a number of concerns about the Library’s request, when 

we get to the second panel. In particular, while some improvements have been made 

by the Library to come into compliance with the spirit and intent of the Government 

Performance and Results Act, the Library’s Inspector General has found resistance 

within the Library to improvements in their budget process. 

We absolutely must ensure that the Library has a solid performance-based budget. According to the IG’s report, ‘‘Performance-based budgeting enables policy makers to determine if programs are contributing to their stated goals, coordinating efforts with related initiatives elsewhere, targeting those most in need of agency services, achieving desired outcomes, and experiencing cost-beneficial results. The success of performance-based budgeting can be measured by the quality of the decisionmaking process, the transparency of decision-making information, and the meaningfulness of the information to key stakeholders.’’ 

Madam Chairman, I will focus some of my questions on this issue when we turn 

to questions. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Please proceed. 

Ms. ERICKSON. Thank you, Chairman Landrieu and Senator Allard, for this opportunity to testify today before your subcommittee 

on behalf of the Office of the Secretary and its employees. I ask 

that my full statement, including our department reports, be submitted for the record. 
131 

With me today is Sheila Dwyer, the Assistant Secretary, and 

Chris Doby, our Financial Clerk, who I know has worked closely 

with your subcommittee staff over the years. I’m also joined today 

by many of our department heads. 

Before turning to my formal remarks, I want to take a moment 

to publicly thank my predecessor, Emily Reynolds, and her Assistant Secretary, Mary Suit Jones, for their assistance during my 

transition. Their graciousness has been a testament to the strength 

of the traditions in the Office of the Secretary. 

BUDGET REQUEST

Our budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $25.5 million, of which 

$23.5 million is salary costs, and $2 million is operating costs. This 

increase from fiscal year 2007 of $2.446 million is comprised totally 

of cost-of-living and merit increases, so that we can continue to attract and retain the caliber of people the Senate deserves for its operations. Notably, our request also factors in necessary funding for 

the implementation and maintenance of the electronic supporting 

systems in the Office of Public Records. 

If enacted this year, Senate bill 1, the Ethics Reform bill, and 

Senate bill 223, a bill that would require electronic filing of Federal 

Election Campaign documents, will significantly increase the volume of reports filed with the Office of the Secretary. 

Prior to taking the oath of office on January 4, many people 

shared with me their high regard for the staff who work for the Office of the Secretary. Their unsolicited comments were a real tribute to the men and women who work in our 26 departments. After 

serving 4 months as Secretary of the Senate, I can attest to the 

wealth of institutional knowledge and their pride in serving the 

Senate every day. It is indeed a privilege to work with this talented 

group of people. 

Since 1789, the Office of the Secretary has traditionally provided 

support for the Senate in three areas: legislative, administrative, 

and financial. And, today I’d like to share some of our staff’s accomplishments in each area. 

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

The state of our Legislative Department, the people who support 

the Chamber’s legislative functions, is strong. Our legislative positions are fully staffed with a healthy mix of experienced veterans 

and newer staff, each of whom have a good amount of experience. 

Our legislative offices operate with an emphasis on teaching, passing on institutional knowledge, and a real concern for succession 

planning. Today, we employ much more crosstraining than in the 

past. We work closely with our partners in the Sergeant at Arms 

Office to practice our continuity of operations planning to ensure 

that we can support the Chamber under any circumstance. 

Our legislative staff work with the Sergeant at Arms on ATS, to 

improve the online amendment tracking system. Now, Senate staff 

have access to not only offered amendments, but also submitted 

amendments. The feedback from the Senate community has been 

extremely positive. 
132 

PARLIAMENTARIAN

I’m pleased to report today that the Office of the Parliamentarian 

intends to complete, by the end of this Congress, a supplement to 

the Senate precedents. This will be an enormous undertaking, but 

will be a valuable resource for Members and their legislative staff. 

CURATOR

With regard to administrative responsibility, the Senate Curator’s staff recently organized the Senate Commission on Art’s unveiling ceremony in the old Senate Chamber for Senator Dole’s 

leadership portrait, which was attended by many of Senator Dole’s 

former colleagues. We also celebrated the completion of the mural 

commemorating the Connecticut Compromise in an unveiling ceremony in the Senate reception room, where we were honored by 

Senator Byrd’s keynote remarks. The Senate Commission on Art 

anticipates an unveiling ceremony later this fall for Senator 

Daschle’s leadership portrait. 

Educating the public about the Senate’s arts and historic furnishings collection is a priority. This past year, the Curator’s staff, 

working with our Senate webmaster, worked together to launch 

several interactive exhibits on Senate.gov. 

SENATE HISTORIAN

With respect to publications, our Senate historian authored a 

wonderful book entitled, ‘‘200 Notable Days,’’ which highlights 200 

colorful short stories about significant events in the Senate’s 218- 

year history. Just in time for new Member orientation, the Senate 

Historical Office, with the assistance of our Printing and Documents Department, published a ‘‘New Member’s Guide to Traditions of the United States Senate’’. 

During my first visit in January to the Senate Library, I had the 

pleasure of meeting a staff member who, single-handedly, completed a 13-year project cataloging all of the Senate’s hearings dating back to 1889, an impressive accomplishment, which provides 

legislative staff with online access to the library’s collection of over 

36,000 Senate hearings. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Is that employee here in the room? 

Could you stand up please? And we’ll give you a round of applause. 

Ms. ERICKSON. In addition to managing a collection that dates 

back from the Continental Congress, the library staff has witnessed 

a 90-percent increase in information inquiries. The library is significantly expanding the use of web technology to meet the Senate’s 

growing demand for accurate and timely information. As the Senate’s purveyor of information, our Senate website, Senate.gov, received 70 million visits last year, 20 million more than the previous 

year. 

STATIONERY ROOM

Unlike the first Secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, we do not 

provide quill pens anymore, but the Keeper of the Stationery sells 

pre-flown flags. Last year’s pilot program was a success, and the 

program is now available to all Senate offices. It allows Senate of-
133 

fices to fulfill constituent requests for flags that have flown over 

the Capitol in a time-sensitive manner. 

We also appreciate the funding your subcommittee provided us 

to complete the point-of-sale project in our Stationery Room. The 

project modernized our 20-year-old computer system. And, I’m 

pleased to report today that it was completed under budget and 

ahead of schedule. We hope the system will allow us to offer e-commerce options in Senate offices. 

DISBURSING OFFICE

With respect to our financial duties, the Senate Disbursing Office 

processes payroll for the nearly 6,500 people on the Senate payroll 

every 2 weeks. In addition, it administers health insurance, life insurance, and retirement programs for Members and their staff. The 

office processed 158,000 vouchers last year. The Disbursing Office 

also provided transition assistance to staff who chose retirement or 

whose employment was affected by the November elections. 

Finally, our web-based financial management information system, known as FMIS, was upgraded to allow offices to better track 

cash and travel advances to make it easier for staff to prepare travel expense reports. We will continue our effort to improve FMIS, 

including the goal of implementing a paperless voucher system. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming 

year and I appreciate your support for the Office of the Secretary. 

I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY ERICKSON

Madam Chairwoman, Senator Allard, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for your invitation to present testimony in support of the budget request of the 

Office of the Secretary of the Senate for fiscal year 2008. 

It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to draw attention to the accomplishments 

of the dedicated and outstanding employees of the Office of the Secretary. The annual reports which follow provide detailed information about the work of the 26 departments of the office, their recent achievements, and their plans for the upcoming 

fiscal year. 

My statement includes: Presenting the fiscal year 2008 budget request; implementing mandated systems, financial management information system (FMIS) and 

legislative information system (LIS); continuity of operations planning; and maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial and administrative 

services. 

PRESENTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

I am requesting a total fiscal year 2008 budget of $25,500,000. The request includes $23,500,000 in salary costs and $2,000,000 for the operating budget of the 

Office of the Secretary. The salary budget represents an increase of $2,446,000 over 

the fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution funds, which were held at fiscal year 

2006 levels. The increase is a result of the costs associated with annual salaries and 

merit increases in fiscal year 2007 not previously funded ($1,112,000), the costs associated with the annual Cost of Living Adjustment for fiscal year 2008 ($650,000), 

and funding for merit increases and other staffing ($684,000). The operating budget 

represents an increase of $20,000 from fiscal year 2007. 

The net effect of my total budget request for 2008 is an increase of $2,466,000. 

Our request is consistent with the amounts requested and received in recent years 

through the Legislative Branch Appropriations process, aside from last fiscal year 

when funding as a result of the Continuing Resolution was held to the previous 
134 

year’s level. This request will enable us to continue to attract and retain talented 

and dedicated individuals to serve the needs of the United States Senate. 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE 

Items 

Amount available 

fiscal year 2007, 

Public Law 110– 

5 

Budget estimates 

fiscal year 2008 Difference 

Departmental operating budget: 

Executive office ................................................................................. $630,000 $550,000 ¥$80,000 

Administrative services ..................................................................... $1,290,000 $1,390,000 ∂$100,000 

Legislative services ........................................................................... $60,000 $60,000 ........................

Total operating budget ................................................................. $1,980,000 $2,000,000 ∂$20,000 

IMPLEMENTING MANDATED SYSTEMS

Two systems critical to our operation are mandated by law, and I would like to 

spend a few moments on each to highlight recent progress, and to thank the committee for your ongoing support of both. 

Financial Management Information System (FMIS) 

The Financial Management Information System, or FMIS, is used by approximately 140 Senate offices. Consistent with our five year strategic plan, the Disbursing Office continues to modernize processes and applications to meet the continued demand by Senate offices for efficiency, accountability and ease of use. Our 

goals are to move to an integrated, paperless voucher system, improve the Web 

FMIS system, and make payroll and accounting system improvements. 

During fiscal year 2006 and the first half of fiscal year 2007, specific progress 

made on the FMIS project included: 

—Web FMIS was upgraded twice, once in January 2006 and again in December 

2006. This system is used by office managers and committee clerks to create 

vouchers and manage office funds, by the Disbursing Office to review vouchers 

and by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to sanction vouchers. These two releases provided both technical and functional changes. Most 

significant of these is the integration of the travel advance and cash advance 

tracking functionality of the standalone Funds Advance Tracking System 

(FATS). As a result of this change, an office manager knows before coming to 

the Disbursing Office front counter whether a travel advance can be issued. The 

system changes support the underlying rules associated with travel advances 

that were issued by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in December 2006. As a result of the integration of the advance functions into Web 

FMIS, the standalone FATS system was shut down during the first week of 

March. 

—The Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) System was upgraded in December 2006. It is used by Senate staff to create expense summary reports (ESRs) 

online and to check the status of reimbursements. It is integrated with Web 

FMIS so that vouchers are created in Web FMIS from ‘‘imported’’ ESRs without 

re-typing the expense and itinerary data shown on the ESR. SAVI release 4.0 

addressed requests from SAVI users to reduce the number of pages for an average travel ESR from 3 to 2 by collapsing any sections in which there are no 

expenses. 

—ADPICS was upgraded twice, once in March 2006 and again in October 2006. 

Used primarily by the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) finance staff, it is a mainframe 

system that provides integrated procurement, receiving and voucher preparation functions that are not included in Web FMIS. In response to requests from 

the SAA finance staff, functional and ‘‘ease-of-use’’ changes to ADPICS were 

made to approximately 40 ADPICS and FAMIS screens. These included adding 

fields on specific screens, modifying calculations, modifying query results, and 

facilitating ‘‘round-trip’’ linking from one screen to another and then back to the 

original. 

—The computing infrastructure for FMIS is provided by the SAA. Each year the 

SAA staff upgrades the infrastructure hardware and software. Two major upgrades were accomplished during the last year. The first, upgrading the FMIS 

database software, DB2 from version 7 to version 8, was done in three ‘‘steps’’, 

the last of which was completed in August 2006. The second, installing a new 

mainframe, first at the Alternate Computer Facility (ACF) and then at the Pri-
135 

mary Computing Facility in the Postal Square Building (PCF), was completed 

in December 2006. For each activity, the Disbursing Office staff tested the 

changes in the FMIS testing environment and then validated the changes in the 

production environment. 

—Disaster operation services for FMIS are provided at the ACF. In October 2006, 

the SAA conducted a day-long disaster recovery test of the Senate’s computing 

facilities, including FMIS functions. The test involved switching the Senate’s 

network from accessing systems at the PCF, to the ACF, our backup location, 

and powering down the PCF. The Disbursing Office staff successfully tested all 

critical online components of FMIS, including Payroll, ADPICS, FAMIS, SAVI, 

Web FMIS, and Checkwriter. Two components were not tested: printing documents from ADPICS for SAA finance, which required hardware that was not 

yet at the ACF; and running the overnight batch processes. 

During the remainder of fiscal year 2007 the following FMIS activities are anticipated: 

—Implementing additional system and reporting enhancements for the SAA. 

—Implementing a new release of Web FMIS that: 

—Integrates additional functionality from the FATS system to track election 

moratorium periods that informs an office manager when a voucher includes 

travel related expenses that are not allowable during the 60 days prior to an 

election; 

—Enhances the pages used by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Audit staff to review and sanction vouchers to use newer technology and 

make functional changes to support imaging and electronic signature functions; 

—Enhances the Office Budget page to simplify creation of a budget; and 

—Allows ‘‘importing’’ of data from the Bank of America credit card program in 

order to simplify voucher creation. 

—Completing analysis of the appropriate hardware/software acquisition strategy 

for electronic signatures, and imaging of supporting documentation, and beginning acquisition. 

—Implementing online distribution of payroll system reports. 

—Implementing e-mail notification to vendors of payments made via direct deposit. 

—Upgrading the Hyperion Financial Management (HFM) system, the software to 

be used for creating financial statements should the Senate decide to issue such 

statements. 

—Testing and verifying an upgrade of the mainframe operating system to Z/OS 

version 1.7 

—Participating in the yearly disaster recovery test. 

During fiscal year 2008 the following FMIS activities are anticipated: 

—Eliminating the Social Security number (SSN) as the key field in the payroll 

system and all Senate systems receiving data from the payroll system (e.g., 

FMIS employee vendor numbers). 

—Converting all data in FMIS using employee vendor number based on SSN to 

new employee vendor number. 

—Conducting a pilot of the technology for paperless payment. This assumes identification of satisfactory hardware and software for electronic signatures and imaging of supporting documentation, and resolution of related policy and process 

issues. 

A more detailed report on FMIS is included in the departmental report of the Disbursing Office which follows. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

While the Architect of the Capitol directly oversees this massive and impressive 

project, I would like to briefly mention the ongoing involvement of the Secretary’s 

office in this endeavor. My colleague, the Clerk of the House, and I continue to facilitate weekly meetings with senior staff of the joint leadership of Congress to address issues that might impact the status of the project or the operation of Congress 

in general. 

Although the construction creates numerous temporary inconveniences to Senators, staff and visitors, completion of the CVC will bring substantial improvements 

in enhanced security and visitor amenities, and its educational benefits for our visitors will be tremendous. 
136 

CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING

Background 

The Office of the Secretary maintains a COOP program to ensure that the Senate 

can fulfill its Constitutional obligations under any circumstances. Plans are in place 

to support Senate floor operations both on and off Capitol Hill, and to permit each 

department within the Office of the Secretary to perform its essential functions during and after an emergency. 

COOP planning in the Office of the Secretary began in late 2000. Since that time, 

the Office has successfully implemented COOP plans during the anthrax and ricin 

incidents, and has conducted more than thirty drills and exercises to test and refine 

our plans. In conjunction with the SAA, USCP, and the Offices of the Attending 

Physician (OAP) and the AOC, the Office of the Secretary has established and exercised Emergency Operations Centers, Briefing Centers, the Leadership Coordination 

Center and Alternate Senate Chambers, both on and off Capitol Hill. 

In addition, the office has identified equipment, supplies and other items critical 

to the conduct of essential functions, and has assembled ‘‘fly-away kits’’ for the Senate Chamber, and for each Department of the Office of the Secretary. Multiple copies of each fly-away kit have been produced; some are stored in offices, and backup kits are stored nearby but off the main campus, as well as at other sites outside 

the District of Columbia. This approach will enable the Office of the Secretary to 

resume essential operations in 12 to 24 hours, even if the staff cannot retrieve anything from their offices. 

Today, the Office of the Secretary is prepared to do the following in the event of 

emergency: 

—support Senate floor operations in an Alternate Senate Chamber within 12 

hours on campus, and within 24 to 72 hours off campus, depending upon location; 

—support an emergency legislative session at a Briefing Center, if required; 

—support Briefing Center Operations at any of three designated locations within 

one hour; 

—activate an Emergency Operations Center at Postal Square or another nearcampus site within one hour; and 

—activate an Emergency Operations Center at another site within the National 

Capital Region within three hours. 

Activities in the Past Year 

During the past year, the Office of the Secretary continued to update, refine and 

exercise emergency preparedness plans and operations. Specific activities included 

the following: 

—Updated plans for use of the Leadership Coordination Center, to support Leadership response to an incident, and the Office of the Secretary’s Emergency Operations Center. 

—Worked with the Sergeant at Arms on development of a joint program to facilitate writing, maintaining and implementing COOP plans. 

—Worked with the SAA, the OAP, and the AOC on contingency plans for a pandemic influenza outbreak. 

—Conducted and participated in 10 emergency preparedness drills and exercises. 

The central mission of the Office of the Secretary is to provide the legislative, financial and administrative support required for the conduct of Senate business. Our 

emergency preparedness programs are designed to ensure that the Senate can carry 

out its Constitutional functions under any circumstances. These programs are critical to our mission and are a permanent, integral part of our operations. 

LEGISLATIVE OFFICES

The Legislative Department of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate provides 

the support essential to Senators to carry out their daily chamber activities and the 

constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. The department consists of eight offices—the Bill Clerk, Captioning Services, Daily Digest, Enrolling Clerk, Executive 

Clerk, Journal Clerk, Legislative Clerk, and the Official Reporters of Debates, which 

are supervised by the Secretary through the Director of Legislative Services. The 

Parliamentarian’s office is also part of the Legislative Department of the Secretary 

of the Senate. 

Each of the nine offices within the Legislative Department is supervised by experienced veterans of the Secretary’s office. The average length of service of legislative 

supervisors in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate is 18 years. The experience 

of these senior professional staff is a great asset for the Senate. In order to ensure 
137 

well-rounded expertise, the legislative team cross-trains extensively among their 

specialties. 

1. BILL CLERK

The Office of the Bill Clerk collects and records data on the legislative activity 

of the Senate, which becomes the historical record of official Senate business. The 

Bill Clerk’s office keeps this information in its handwritten files and ledgers and 

also enters it into the Senate’s automated retrieval system so that it is available 

to all House and Senate offices via the Legislative Information System (LIS). The 

Bill Clerk records actions of the Senate with regard to bills, resolutions, reports, 

amendments, cosponsors, public law numbers, and recorded votes. The Bill Clerk is 

responsible for preparing for print all measures introduced, received, submitted, and 

reported in the Senate. The Bill Clerk also assigns numbers to all Senate bills and 

resolutions. All the information received in this office comes directly from the Senate floor in written form within moments of the action involved, so the Bill Clerk’s 

office is generally regarded as the most timely and most accurate source of legislative information. 

Legislative Activity 

The Bill Clerk’s office processed into the database more than 1,500 additional legislative items and 50 additional roll call votes than the previous session. Of most 

significant note, the number of Senate Resolutions submitted increased dramatically 

to reach 634, the highest number submitted in any one Congress. 

For comparative purposes, below is a summary of the second sessions of the 108th 

and 109th Congresses, followed by a cumulative summary of final numbers from 

each Congress: 

108th Congress, 2nd Ses- sion 109th Congress, 2nd Ses- sion 

108th Congress 109th Congress 

Senate Bills .......................................................................... 1,032 1,953 3,035 4,122 

Senate Joint Resolutions ...................................................... 16 14 42 41 

Senate Concurrent Resolutions ............................................ 66 48 152 123 

Senate Resolutions ............................................................... 204 287 487 634 

Amendments Submitted ....................................................... 1,857 2,544 4,088 5,239 

House Bills ............................................................................ 322 325 604 611 

House Joint Resolutions ........................................................ 12 8 32 19 

House Concurrent Resolutions .............................................. 87 77 165 165 

Measures Reported ............................................................... 317 233 659 519 

Written Reports ..................................................................... 208 157 428 369 

Total Legislation ...................................................... 4,121 5,646 9,692 11,842 

Roll Call Votes ...................................................................... 216 279 675 645 

Assistance with the Government Printing Office 

The Bill Clerk’s office maintains a good working relationship with the Government Printing Office (GPO) and seeks to provide the best service possible to meet 

the needs of the Senate. GPO continues to respond in a timely manner to the Secretary’s request, through the Bill Clerk’s office, for the printing of bills and reports, 

including the expedited printing of priority matters for the Senate chamber. To date, 

at the request of the Secretary through the Bill Clerk, GPO expedited the printing 

of over 100 measures for consideration by the Senate during the 109th Congress. 

2. OFFICE OF CAPTIONING SERVICES

The Office of Captioning Services provides realtime captioning of Senate floor proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and unofficial electronic transcripts of 

Senate floor proceedings to Senate offices via the Senate Intranet. 

Accuracy continues to be the top priority of the office. Overall caption quality is 

monitored through daily Translation Data Reports, monitoring of captions in 

realtime, and review of caption files on the Senate Intranet. Dedication to this process has produced an overall average office accuracy rate above 99 percent this past 

year, the 13th year in a row the office has achieved this feat. 

Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP) and preparation throughout 2006 also 

was a priority to ensure that staff are prepared and confident about the ability to 

relocate and successfully caption from a remote location in the event of an emergency. 
138 

The office continues to prepare and plan for its relocation to the Senate expansion 

space in the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), where it will be housed with the Senate 

Recording Studio. 

3. SENATE DAILY DIGEST

The Senate Daily Digest serves seven principal functions: 

—To render a brief, concise and easy-to-read accounting of all official actions 

taken by the Senate in the Congressional Record section known as the Daily 

Digest. 

—To compile an accounting of all meetings of Senate committees, subcommittees, 

joint committees and committees of conference. 

—To enter all Senate and Joint committee scheduling data into the Senate’s Webbased scheduling application system. Committee scheduling information is also 

prepared for publication in the Daily Digest in three formats: Day-Ahead Schedule; Congressional Program for the Week Ahead; and the extended schedule 

which appears in the Extensions of Remarks section of the Congressional 

Record. 

—To enter into LIS all official actions taken by Senate committees on legislation, 

nominations, and treaties. 

—To publish in the Daily Digest a listing of all legislation which has become public law. 

—To publish on the first legislative day of each month in the Daily Digest a ‘‘Resume of Congressional Activity’’ which includes all Congressional statistical information, including days and time in session; measures introduced, reported 

and passed; and roll call votes. (See Chart—Resume of Congressional Activity) 

—To assist the House Daily Digest Editor in the preparation at the end of each 

session of Congress a history of public bills enacted into law and a final resume 

of congressional statistical activity. 

Committee Activity 

Senate committees held 916 meetings during the second session of the 109th Congress, 153 more than were held during the second session of the 108th Congress. 

All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and conferences) are 

scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily Digest, published in the Congressional Record and entered in LIS. Meeting outcomes are also published by the Daily 

Digest in the Congressional Record each day. 

Chamber Activity 

The Senate was in session 138 days, for a total of 1,027 hours and 48 minutes, 

and conducted one live quorum call and 279 roll call votes. (See 20-Year Comparison 

of Senate Legislative Activity) 

Computer Activities 

The Digest continues the practice of sending a disc containing the complete publication along with a duplicate hard copy to GPO at the end of the day. GPO receives 

the Digest copy by electronic transfer, which promotes the timeliness of publishing 

the Congressional Record. The office continues to feel comfortable with this procedure, both to allow the Digest Editor to physically view what is being transmitted 

to GPO, and to allow GPO staff to have a comparable final product to cross reference. The Digest office will soon implement a new procedure for preparing copy. Information System staff has worked closely with the Daily Digest staff to develop a 

Daily Digest Authoring System. The system will streamline the process for creating, 

editing, and managing files for the publication of the Daily Digest, and the publishing of the Congressional Record. Also, Digest staff continue to work closely with 

computer staff to refine the LIS/DMS system, including further refining the Senate 

Committee Scheduling application. 

Government Printing Office 

The Daily Digest continues to work with GPO on issues related to the printing 

of the Digest and is pleased to report that editing corrections, especially the insertion of page reference numbers, and transcript errors are infrequent. Discussions 

with GPO continue regarding the inclusion of online corrections. 

Office Summation 

The Daily Digest consults on a daily basis with the Senate Parliamentarians, the 

Official Reporters of Debates, and the Legislative, Executive, Journal, and Bill 

Clerks, as well as the staffs of the policy committees and other committee staffs, 

and is grateful for the continued support from these offices. 
139 

DATA ON LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY—SECOND SESSION, 109TH CONGRESS 

Senate House Total 

Days in Session ......................................................................................... 138 101 ........................

Time in Session ......................................................................................... 1,027 hrs 48′′ 850 hrs, 19′′ ........................

Congressional Record: 

Pages of proceedings ....................................................................... S11849 H9202 ........................

Extension of remarks ........................................................................ ........................ E2187 ........................

Public bills enacted into law .................................................................... 73 175 248 

Private bills enacted into law ................................................................... 1 ........................ 1 

Bills in conference ..................................................................................... 1 4 5 

Measures passed, total ............................................................................. 635 710 1,345 

Senate bills ....................................................................................... 142 87 ........................

House bills ........................................................................................ 211 319 ........................

Senate joint resolutions .................................................................... 2 2 ........................

House joint resolutions ..................................................................... 8 8 ........................

Senate concurrent resolutions .......................................................... 20 8 ........................

House concurrent resolutions ........................................................... 41 77 ........................

Simple resolutions ............................................................................ 211 209 ........................

Measures reported, total 1 ......................................................................... 231 345 576 

Senate bills ....................................................................................... 160 10 ........................

House bills ........................................................................................ 57 223 ........................

Senate joint resolutions .................................................................... 3 ........................ ........................

House joint resolutions ..................................................................... ........................ 1 ........................

Senate concurrent resolutions .......................................................... 4 ........................ ........................

House concurrent resolutions ........................................................... ........................ 9 ........................

Simple resolutions ............................................................................ 7 102 ........................

Special reports ........................................................................................... 9 12 ........................

Conference reports ..................................................................................... 1 9 ........................

Measures pending on calendar ................................................................. 303 159 ........................

Measures introduced, total ........................................................................ 2,302 2,451 4,753 

Bills ................................................................................................... 1,953 1,785 ........................

Joint resolutions ................................................................................ 14 27 ........................

Concurrent resolutions ...................................................................... 48 174 ........................

Simple resolutions ............................................................................ 287 465 ........................

Quorum calls .............................................................................................. 1 2 ........................

Yea-and-nay votes ..................................................................................... 279 287 ........................

Recorded votes ........................................................................................... ........................ 252 ........................

Bills vetoed ................................................................................................ ........................ 1 ........................

Vetoes overridden ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

1 These figures include all measures reported, even if there was no accompanying report. A total of 155 reports have been filed in the Sen- ate, a total of 366 reports have been filed in the House. 

NOMINATIONS—RESUME 

[Disposition of Executive Nominations (109–2) From: 01/03/2006 to 12/31/2006] 

Civilian Nominations, totaling 618 (including 148 nominations carried over from the First Session), 

disposed of as follows: 

Confirmed ........................................................................................................................................ 415 

Withdrawn ....................................................................................................................................... 21 

Returned to White House ................................................................................................................ 182 

Other Civilian Nominations, totaling 3266 (including 780 nominations carried over from the First 

Session), disposed of as follows: 

Confirmed ........................................................................................................................................ 3,263 

Withdrawn ....................................................................................................................................... 1 

Returned to White House ................................................................................................................ 2 

Air Force Nominations, totaling 7830 (including 100 nominations carried over from the First Session), disposed of as follows: 

Confirmed ........................................................................................................................................ 7,829 

Returned to White House ................................................................................................................ 1 

Army Nominations, totaling 9785 (including 608 nominations carried over from the First Session), 

disposed of as follows: 

Confirmed ........................................................................................................................................ 9,772 

Returned to White House ................................................................................................................ 13 
140 

NOMINATIONS—RESUME—Continued 

[Disposition of Executive Nominations (109–2) From: 01/03/2006 to 12/31/2006] 

Navy Nominations, totaling 7036 (including 21 nominations carried over from the First Session), 

disposed of as follows: 

Confirmed ........................................................................................................................................ 7,035 

Returned to White House ................................................................................................................ 1 

Marine Corps Nominations, totaling 1293 (including 2 nominations carried over from the First Session), disposed of as follows: 

Confirmed ........................................................................................................................................ 1,289 

Returned to White House ................................................................................................................ 4 

Summary: 

Total Nominations carried over from the First Session ................................................................. 1,659 

Total Nominations Received this Session ....................................................................................... 28,169 

Total Confirmed ............................................................................................................................... 29,603 

Total Unconfirmed ........................................................................................................................... ....................................

Total Withdrawn .............................................................................................................................. 22 

Total Returned to the White House ................................................................................................ 203 
141 

20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 

Senate Convened .............................................. 1/6 1/25 1/3 1/23 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/25 1/4 1/3 Senate Adjourned .............................................. 12/22 10/21 11/21 10/28 1/3/92 10/9 11/26 12/01 1/3/96 10/4 Days in Session ................................................ 170 137 136 138 158 129 153 138 211 132 Hours in Session ............................................... 1,214′52′′ 1,126′48′′ 1,003′19′′ 1,250′14′′ 1,200′44′′ 1,091′09′′ 1,269′41′′ 1,243′33′′ 1,839′10′′ 1,036′45′′ Average Hours per Day ..................................... 7.1 8.2 7.4 9.1 7.6 8.5 8.3 9.0 8.7 7.8 Total Measures Passed ..................................... 616 814 605 716 626 651 473 465 346 476 Roll Call Votes .................................................. 420 379 312 326 280 270 395 329 613 306 Quorum Calls .................................................... 36 26 11 3 3 5 2 6 3 2 Public Laws ...................................................... 240 473 240 244 243 347 210 255 88 245 Treaties Ratified ............................................... 3 15 9 15 15 32 20 8 10 28 Nominations Confirmed .................................... 46,404 42,317 45,585 42,493 45,369 30,619 38,676 37,446 40,535 33,176 Average Voting Attendance .............................. 94.03 91.58 98.0 97.47 97.16 95.4 97.6 97.02 98.07 98.22 Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon ................. 131 120 95 116 126 112 128 120 184 113 Sessions Convened at 12 Noon ........................ 12 12 14 4 9 ...................... 6 9 2 15 Sessions Convened after 12 Noon ................... 25 5 27 17 23 10 15 17 12 7 Sessions Continued after 6 p.m ...................... 97 37 88 100 102 91 100 100 158 88 Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight ............ 6 7 9 13 6 4 9 7 3 1 Saturday Sessions ............................................ 3 ...................... 1 3 2 2 2 3 5 1 Sunday Sessions ............................................... 1 ...................... ...................... 2 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 3 ......................

20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY—Continued 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Senate Convened .............................................. 1/3 1/27 1/6 1/24 1/3 1/23 1/7 1/20 1/4 1/3 Senate Adjourned .............................................. 11/13 10/21 11/19 12/15 12/20 11/20 12/9 12/8 12/22 12/9 Days in Session ................................................ 153 143 162 141 173 149 167 133 159 138 Hours in Session ............................................... 1,093′07′′ 1,095′05′′ 1,183′57′′ 1,017′51′′ 1,236′15′′ 1,042′23′′ 1,454′05′′ 1,031′31′′ 1,222′26′′ 1,027′48′′ Average Hours per Day ..................................... 7.1 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 8.7 7.7 7.7 7.4 Total Measures Passed ..................................... 386 506 549 696 425 523 590 663 624 635 Roll Call Votes .................................................. 298 314 374 298 380 253 459 216 366 279 Quorum Calls .................................................... 6 4 7 6 3 2 3 1 3 1 Public Laws ...................................................... 153 241 170 410 136 241 198 300 169 248 Treaties Ratified ............................................... 15 53 13 39 3 17 11 15 6 14 Nominations Confirmed .................................... 25,576 20,302 22,468 22,512 25,091 23,633 21,580 24,420 25,942 29,603 Average Voting Attendance .............................. 98.68 97.47 98.02 96.99 98.29 96.36 96.07 95.54 97.41 97.13 
142 

20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY—Continued—Continued 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon ................. 115 109 118 107 140 119 133 104 121 110 Sessions Convened at 12 Noon ........................ 12 31 17 25 10 12 4 9 1 4 Sessions Convened after 12 Noon ................... 7 2 19 24 21 23 23 21 36 24 Sessions Continued after 6 p.m ...................... 96 93 113 94 108 103 134 129 120 129 Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight ............ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 2 3 8 2 3 3 Saturday Sessions ............................................ 1 1 3 1 3 ...................... 1 2 2 2 Sunday Sessions ............................................... 1 ...................... ...................... 1 ...................... ...................... 1 1 2 ......................

Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest—Office of the Secretary. 
143 

4. ENROLLING CLERK

The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all Senate-passed 

legislation prior to its transmittal to the House of Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the United States Claims Court, and the White 

House. 

During 2006, 99 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President), 2 enrolled joint resolutions (transmitted to the President) and 9 concurrent resolutions (transmitted to 

Archives) were prepared, proofread, corrected, and printed on parchment for official 

enrollment. In addition, the office processed a total of 571 additional pieces of legislation that were passed or agreed to by the Senate. 

Throughout 2006 the enrolling clerks met with personnel of the LIS Project Office 

to integrate and test the LEXA application for processing bills for printing. The 

LEXA training manual was updated in early February 2006; and, as of January 

2007, the enrolling clerks are now incorporating the new legislative drafting tool. 

Senate Enrolling will embark in this new challenge to continue to help incorporate 

these changes into the process to further its primary mission of providing the most 

timely and accurate product for the Senate. 

5. EXECUTIVE CLERK

The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by the Senate 

during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and treaties) which is published as the Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate at the end of each 

session of Congress. The Executive Clerk also prepared the Executive Calendar 

daily as well as all nominations and treaty resolutions for transmittal to the President. Additionally, the Executive Clerk’s office processes all executive communications, presidential messages and petitions and memorials. 

Nominations 

During the second session of the 109th Congress, there were 1,049 nomination 

messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting 28,169 nominations to 

positions requiring Senate confirmation and 22 messages withdrawing nominations 

sent to the Senate during the second session of the 109th Congress. Of the total 

nominations transmitted, 370 were for civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign Service, Coast Guard, NOAA, and Public Health Service. In addition, there 

were 2,486 nominees in the ‘‘civilian list’’ categories named above. Military nominations received this session totaled 25,213 (7,730—Air Force; 9,177—Army; 7,015— 

Navy and 1,291—Marine Corps). The Senate confirmed 29,603 nominations this session. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule XXXI, 203 nominations were returned to the President during the second session of the 109th Congress. 

Treaties 

There were 14 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President during the second session of the 109th Congress for its advice and consent to ratification, which 

were ordered printed as treaty documents for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 

109–9 through 109–22). The Senate gave its advice and consent to 14 treaties with 

various conditions, declarations, understandings and provisos to the resolutions of 

advice and consent to ratification. 

Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes 

There were 11 executive reports relating to treaties ordered printed for the use 

of the Senate during the second session of the 109th Congress (Executive Report 

109–9 through 109–19). The Senate conducted 29 roll call votes in executive session, 

all on or in relation to nominations and treaties. 

Executive Communications 

For the second session of the 109th Congress, 4,186 executive communications, 

192 petitions and memorials and 23 Presidential messages were received and processed. 

LIS Update 

The Executive Clerk consulted with the computer staff during the year to improve 

the LIS processing of nominations, treaties, executive communications, presidential 

messages and petitions and memorials. 

6. JOURNAL CLERK

The Journal Clerk takes notes of the daily legislative proceedings of the Senate 

in the ‘‘Minute Book’’ and prepares a history of bills and resolutions for the printed 
144 

Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate, or Senate Journal, as required by Article 

I, Section V of the Constitution. The Senate Journal is published each calendar 

year, and in 2006, the Journal Clerk completed the production of the 1,090 page 

2005 edition. 

The Journal staff take 90-minute turns at the rostrum in the Senate chamber, 

noting by hand for inclusion in the Minute Book (i) all orders (entered into by the 

Senate through unanimous consent agreements), (ii) legislative messages received 

from the President of the United States, (iii) messages from the House of Representatives, (iv) legislative actions as taken by the Senate (including motions made by 

Senators, points of order raised, and roll call votes taken), (v) amendments submitted and proposed for consideration, (vi) bills and joint resolutions introduced, and 

(vii) concurrent and Senate resolutions as submitted. These notes of the proceedings 

are then compiled in electronic form for eventual publication at the end of each calendar year of the Senate Journal. 

The LIS Senate Journal Authoring System continues to be updated as needed to 

further assist in the efficiency of production. The 2006 Senate Journal is expected 

to be sent to GPO for printing at the end of April. 

7. LEGISLATIVE CLERK

The Legislative Clerk sits at the Secretary’s desk in the Senate Chamber and 

reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate Journal, Presidential messages, and 

other such materials when so directed by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. The 

Legislative Clerk calls the roll of members to establish the presence of a quorum 

and to record and tally all yea and nay votes. The office prepares the Senate Calendar of Business, published each day that the Senate is in session, and prepares 

additional publications relating to Senate class membership and committee and subcommittee assignments. The Legislative Clerk maintains the official copy of all 

measures pending before the Senate and must incorporate into those measures any 

amendments that are agreed to. This office retains custody of official messages received from the House of Representatives and conference reports awaiting action by 

the Senate. The office is responsible for verifying the accuracy of information entered into LIS by the various offices of the Secretary. 

Summary of Activity 

The second session of the 109th Congress completed its legislative business and 

adjourned on December 9, 2006. During 2006, the Senate was in session 138 days 

and conducted 279 roll call votes. There were 231 measures reported from committees and 635 total measures passed. In addition, there were 2,545 amendments 

processed. 

Cross-Training 

Recognizing the importance of planning for the continuity of Senate business, 

under both normal and possibly extenuating circumstances, cross-training continues 

to be strongly emphasized among the Secretary’s legislative staff. To ensure additional staff are trained to perform the basic floor responsibilities of the Legislative 

Clerk, as well as the various other floor-related responsibilities of the Secretary, approximately 50 percent of the legislative staff are currently involved or have recently been involved in cross-training. 

Amendment Tracking System Feedback 

The Senate’s Web-based application that allows users to access images of Senate 

amendments proposed to legislation is called the Amendment Tracking System 

(ATS). Developed in 1997 to provide the Senate with online access to amendments, 

ATS provides legislative staff with scanned images of the amendments, and descriptive information about them, including their purpose, sponsor, cosponsors, submitted 

date, proposed date, and status. 

In September of 2005, the scope of information available on ATS was expanded 

to include submitted amendments, those amendments that have been submitted but 

have not been proposed on the Senate floor. Staff members now have the option to 

view all, just submitted, or just proposed amendments. ATS also expanded the size 

of amendment images from 25 to 50 pages, so users are now able to see up to 50 

pages of a submitted or proposed amendment. 

After utilizing the expanded version of the ATS for a full year, reaction from the 

Senate community continues to be extremely positive. 

8. OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES

The Official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit a substantially verbatim report 

of the proceedings of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record, and 
145 

serve as liaison for all Senate personnel on matters relating to the content of the 

Record. The transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation are 

transmitted in hard copy and electronically throughout the day to GPO. 

The office works diligently to assure that the electronic submissions to GPO are 

timely and efficient. The Official Reporters encourage offices to make submissions 

to the Record by electronic means, which results in both a tremendous cost saving 

to the Senate and minimizes keyboard errors. The office provides formatting guidelines to Senate offices which has facilitated an accurate and timely printing of each 

day’s Congressional Record. 

9. PARLIAMENTARIAN

The Parliamentarian’s Office continues to perform its essential institutional responsibilities to act as a neutral arbiter among all parties with an interest in the 

legislative process. These responsibilities include advising the Chair, Senators and 

their staff, as well as committee staff, House members and their staffs, administration officials, the media and members of the general public, on all matters requiring 

an interpretation of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the precedents of the Senate, 

unanimous consent agreements, as well as provisions of public law affecting the proceedings of the Senate. 

The Parliamentarians work in close cooperation with the Senate leadership and 

their floor staffs in coordinating all of the business on the Senate floor. The Parliamentarian or one of his assistants is always present on the Senate floor when the 

Senate is in session, standing ready to assist the Presiding Officer in his or her official duties, as well as to assist any other Senator on procedural matters. The Parliamentarians work closely with the staff of the Vice President of the United States 

and the Vice President himself whenever he performs his duties as President of the 

Senate. 

The Parliamentarians monitor all proceedings on the floor of the Senate, advise 

the Presiding Officer on the competing rights of the Senators on the floor, and advise all Senators as to what is appropriate in debate. The Parliamentarians keep 

track of the amendments offered to the legislation pending on the Senate floor, and 

monitor them for points of order. In this respect, the Parliamentarians reviewed 

more than 1,000 amendments during 2006 to determine if they met various procedural requirements (such as germaneness). The Parliamentarians also reviewed 

thousands of pages of conference reports to determine what provisions could appropriately be included therein. 

The Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral to the appropriate 

committees of all legislation introduced in the Senate, all legislation received from 

the House, as well as all communications received from the executive branch, state 

and local governments, and private citizens. In order to perform this responsibility, 

the Parliamentarians do extensive legal and legislative research. During 2006, the 

Parliamentarian and his assistants referred 2,245 measures and 4,403 communications to the appropriate Senate committees. The office worked extensively with Senators and their staffs to advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of particular 

drafts of legislation, and evaluated the jurisdictional effect of proposed modifications 

in drafting. The office continues to address the jurisdictional questions posed by the 

creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, by the adoption of S. Res. 

445 reorganizing intelligence and homeland security jurisdiction of the Senate’s 

committees, and by the enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The Parliamentarians have made dozens of decisions about the 

committee referrals of nominations for new positions created in this department, 

nominations for positions which existed before this department was created but 

whose responsibilities have changed, and hundreds of legislative proposals concerning the department’s responsibilities. 

Additionally, in the last six years, rules relating to legislation on appropriations 

bills, and the scope of conference reports on all bills were reinstated. As a result, 

the Parliamentarians have been asked to review hundreds of Senate amendments 

and now have the responsibility of potentially reviewing every provision of every 

conference report considered by both Houses of Congress. 

In 2006, as in all election years, the Parliamentarians received all of the certificates of election of Senators elected or reelected to the Senate, and reviewed them 

for sufficiency and accuracy, returning those that were defective and reviewing their 

replacements. 
146 

FINANCIAL OPERATIONS: DISBURSING OFFICE

DISBURSING OFFICE ORGANIZATION

The mission of the Senate Disbursing Office is to provide efficient and effective 

central financial and human resource data management, information and advice to 

the distributed, individually managed offices of the United States Senate, and to 

Members and employees of the Senate. To accomplish this mission, the Senate Disbursing Office manages the collection of information from the distributed accounting 

locations within the Senate to formulate and consolidate the agency level budget, 

disburse the payroll, pay the Senate’s bills, prepare auditable financial statements, 

and provide appropriate counseling and advice. The Senate Disbursing office collects 

information from Members and employees that is necessary to maintain and administer the retirement, health insurance, life insurance, and other central human resource programs and provides responsive, personal attention to Members and employees on an unbiased and confidential basis. The Senate Disbursing Office also 

manages the distribution of central financial and human resource information to the 

individual Member offices, committees, administrative and leadership offices in the 

Senate while maintaining the confidentiality of information for Members and Senate 

employees. 

To support the mission of the Senate Disbursing Office, the organization is structured to enhance its ability to provide quality work, maintain a high level of customer service, promote good internal controls, efficiency and teamwork, and provide 

for the appropriate levels of supervision and management. The long-term financial 

needs of the Senate are best served by an organization staffed with highly trained 

professionals who possess a high degree of institutional knowledge, sound judgment, 

and interpersonal skills that reflect the unique nature of the United States Senate. 

DEPUTY FOR BENEFITS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

The principal responsibility of this position is to provide expertise and oversight 

on federal retirement, benefits, payroll, and financial services processes. Coordination of the interaction between the Financial Services (Front Office), Employee Benefits, and Payroll Sections is also a major responsibility of the position, in addition 

to the planning and project management of new computer systems and programs. 

The Deputy for Benefits and Financial Services ensures that job processes are efficient and up to date, modifies computer support systems, as necessary, implements 

regulatory and legislated changes, and designs and produces up-to-date forms for 

use in all three sections. 

After year-end processing of payroll for the calendar year 2005, minor enhancements to the cost of living allowance (COLA) process were smoothly completed. W– 

2’s were issued promptly and made immediately available on the Document Imaging 

System (DIS). During the year, other minor changes were made to the Human Resources Management System (HRMS) to promote greater efficiency. 

DIS, which contains electronic images of employee personnel folders, documents, 

records, W–2 statements, as well as other pay and service history records, has proven to be a valuable resource for the Disbursing Office. As DIS began nearing its 

storage capacity, research was conducted and projections were made on future uses 

and capacity requirements. New SQL servers were requisitioned and installed. In 

addition to transferring data from old to new, including replication for the Alternate 

Computing Facility (ACF), testing of the new server has begun, and it is expected 

to be fully operational later this month. This upgrade will allow us the ability to 

expand the scope of our document imaging and to bring it into full compliance with 

COOP guidelines. 

The Senate Service Facility (SSF) was completed in February. Revolving vertical 

file cabinets were installed in the Disbursing Office’s enclosed, secure and environmentally controlled area. In addition, a dedicated, secure ‘‘cage’’ was provided for 

organized and elevated box storage. Access was granted and security codes were authorized to those in need of access. All Disbursing Office files and employee personnel folders in the offsite warehouses were transported to the SSF. Employee personnel folders were then transferred from the 70 outdated file cabinets into the 

state-of-the-art revolving vertical cabinets. This required a great deal of planning 

and organization to integrate the personnel folders from many groupings into one 

alphabetical run for ease of access and organization. During the summer, 18,000 of 

the older employee personnel folders maintained on-site in the Disbursing Office 

were purged. These folders were transported to the SSF and interfiled with those 

folders already located there. This alleviated overcrowding of the Disbursing Office 

files and has made the older folders readily accessible. 
147 

As a result of legislation passed in 2004, the new pre-tax Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP) was implemented in 2006. In preparation for implementation, disbursing staff attended agency-wide meetings and seminars. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provides guidance for this program which is administered by a third-party administrator. Programming specifications were determined for compliance with the program’s parameters and its regulations, and provided to the SAA Computer Center for development. The Disbursing 

Office provided testing and trouble-shooting for the new programming. Preparations 

for the first annual FEDVIP Open Season (OS) were made, including training, education and distribution of materials. The initial FEDVIP OS coincided with the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) OS, 

and enrollments were effective 12–31–2006. This new program will be monitored 

with programming and procedures modified as needed. 

Updates and revision of many Disbursing Office forms were completed, and many 

were made available electronically through Webster. The Disbursing Office also 

worked with the SAA Computer Center to provide internal electronic storage and 

retrieval of reports and to eliminate the need for paper production and distribution 

of those reports. 

In addition, the Disbursing Office administers the retirement and benefits programs for the Senate Employees’ Child Care Center (SECCC). In 2006 electronic imaging and storage of employee folders and documents for SECCC staff was completed as well as the creation of electronic retirement records. 

At the request of the Senate Committee Rules and Administration, the Disbursing 

Office worked to edit and update relevant portions of the Senate Handbook. In addition, Senator-elect information and guidance was also reviewed and updated for the 

orientation handbook. 

FRONT OFFICE—ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Front Office is the main service area of all general Senate business and financial activity. The Front office maintains the Senate’s internal accountability of 

funds used in daily operations. Reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily 

basis. The Front office provides training to newly authorized payroll contacts along 

with continuing guidance to all contacts in the execution of business operations. It 

is the receiving point for most incoming expense vouchers, payroll actions, and employee benefits related forms, and is the initial verification point to ensure that paperwork received in the Disbursing Office conforms to all applicable Senate rules, 

regulations, and statutes. The Front Office is the first line of service provided to 

Senate Members, Officers, and employees. All new Senate employees (permanent 

and temporary) who will work in the Capitol Hill Senate offices are administered 

the required oath of office and personnel affidavit. Staff is also provided verbal and 

written detailed information regarding pay and benefits. Authorization is certified 

to new and state employees for issuance of Senate identification cards. Advances are 

issued to Senate staff authorized for official Senate travel. Cash and check advances 

are entered and reconciled in the Funds Advance Tracking System (FATS). Repayment of travel advances is executed after processing of certified expenses is complete. Travelers checks are available on a non-profit basis to assist the traveler. Numerous inquiries are handled daily, ranging from pay, benefits, taxes, voucher processing, reporting, laws, and Senate regulations, and must always be answered accurately and fully to provide the highest degree of customer service. Cash and checks 

received from Senate entities as part of their daily business are handled through 

the Front office and become part of the Senate’s accountability of federally appropriated funds and are then processed through the Senate’s general ledger system. 

General Activities 

Processed approximately 2,300 cash advances, totaling approximately $1.1 million 

and initialized 800 check/direct deposit advances, totaling approximately $620,000. 

Received and processed more than 25,000 checks, totaling over $2,500,000. 

Administered Oath and Personnel Affidavits to more than 2,700 new Senate staff 

and advised them of their benefits. 

Maintained brochures for 12 Federal health carriers and distributed approximately 4,000 brochures to new and existing staff during the annual FEHB OS. 

Provided 20 training sessions to new administrative managers. 

In December, the advance functionality module of Web FMIS was implemented 

to replace the legacy FATS system for issuance and repayment of travel advances. 

This implementation required the ongoing dual run of both systems until testing 

was successfully completed in March of this year. 

The Front office continues its daily reconciliation of operations and strengthened 

internal office controls. New locks for cash drawers were ordered and scheduled for 
148 

installation. This will allow for better central control of the cash accountability. 

Training and guidance to new administrative managers and business contacts continued, as did the incorporation of updates of the scanning and imaging project into 

daily operations. A major emphasis was placed on assisting employees in maximizing their Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions and making them aware of the 

TSP catch-up program. The Front office continued to provide the Senate community 

with prompt, courteous, and informative advice regarding Disbursing Office operations. 

PAYROLL SECTION

The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System 

(HRMS) and is responsible for processing, verifying, and warehousing all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office by Senators, Chairmen and other appointing officials for their staffs, including appointments of employees, salary 

changes, title changes, transfers and terminations. It is also responsible for input 

of all enrollments and elections submitted by Members and employees that affect 

their pay (e.g. retirement and benefits elections, tax withholding, TSP participation, 

allotments from pay, address changes, direct deposit elections, levies and garnishments) and for the issuance of accurate salary payments to Members and employees. The Payroll Section jointly maintains the Automated Clearing House (ACH) 

FedLine facilities with the Accounts Payable Section for the normal transmittal of 

payroll deposits to the Federal Reserve. Payroll Expenditure, Projection and Allowance reports are distributed to all Senate offices. Issuance of the proper withholding 

and agency contributions reports to the Accounting Department is handled by Payroll as is transmission of the proper TSP information to the National Finance Center. In addition, the Payroll Section maintains earnings records for distribution to 

the Social Security Administration and employees’ taxable earnings records for W– 

2 statements. The Payroll Section is also responsible for the payroll expenditure 

data portion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. The Payroll Section calculates, reconciles and bills the SECCC (Child Care Center) for their staff Employee 

Contributions and forwards payment of those contributions to the Accounting Section. The Payroll Section provides guidance and counseling to staff and administrative managers on issues of pay, salaries, allowances and projections. 

General Activities 

The Payroll Section processed a January 1, 2006 cost of living increase of 3.44 

percent. The Payroll Section maintained the normal schedule of processing TSP election forms. Employees took full advantage of the increase of TSP deductions making 

the most of the new $15,000 maximum. For those employees over 50, the TSP catchup program provided an opportunity to make additional contributions in excess of 

the standard limitations. 

Payroll Allowance, Expenditure and Projection reports are provided to all Senate 

offices on a monthly basis. A desire to provide these reports in an electronic format 

was identified. Brainstorming sessions were held within the Disbursing Office to determine possible paths for this project. Initial contacts between the Disbursing Office, SAA Computer Center and the appropriate contractor were made and early 

stage meetings have been held to identify requirements, possible strategies and 

means to provide the electronic reports. The goal is to make these reports available 

electronically in 2007. 

The Payroll Section provides administration of the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP). In response to the high volume of calls and e-mails, an exclusive SLP 

e-mail account has been established. This tool will speed responses to inquiries from 

offices and employees. In addition, meetings were held with office administrators to 

provide clarification about and to ensure compliance with Public Law 107–68 that 

governs the Senate SLP. 

In November the Payroll Section gained access to the U.S. Treasury Pacer System, which allows us to resolve SLP lender issues and employee inquiries in an accurate and efficient manner by presenting physical evidence of payments negotiated. 

Disbursing continues to review internal processes and controls, seeking ways to improve efficiency and performance. In 2006, the office developed a database to provide 

better tracking and reporting for the SLP activities. 

In September the Payroll Section began to receive TSP reports, receipts, loans and 

error lists via TSP’s Web-based secure system. This enabled us to handle all of these 

functions in a timely manner. Previously TSP correspondence was sent by mail and 

was subject to mail delays and loss. 

The Payroll Section was involved in the preparations and programming specifications for implementation of FEDVIPS. Flexible Spending Accounts, and Long Term 
149 

Care Insurance processing continues. The office continues to refine and improve 

processes in working with third party administrators. 

The 2006 elections presented the Payroll Section with the need to prepare for the 

opening and closing of ten personal offices in addition to leadership changes. Disbursing Office staff looked into the specifics of S. Res. 478 to determine its impact 

on outgoing staff and to ensure that procedures allowed for the proper administration of the resolution. 

The Payroll Section again participated in disaster recovery testing. This year’s 

test, conducted in October, entailed using the ACF processing equipment to operate 

the payroll/personnel system from the Hart Building while SAA programmers ran 

trial payrolls from dial up sources. Part of the test was for members of SAA Production Services to produce the payroll output from printers located at the ACF. The 

Payroll/Personnel Systems test proved that it could be run from multiple locations 

at the same time. 

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECTION

The primary responsibilities of the Employee Benefits Section (EBS) are administration of health insurance, life insurance and all retirement programs for Members 

and employees of the Senate. This includes counseling, processing of paperwork, research, dissemination of information and interpretation of retirement and benefits 

laws and regulations. EBS staff is also expected to have a working knowledge of 

FSAs, the Long Term Care Insurance (LTCI) Program and FEDVIPS. In addition, 

the sectional work includes research and verification of all prior federal service and 

prior Senate service for new and returning appointees. EBS provides this information for payroll input and when Official Personnel Folders and Transcripts of Service from other federal agencies are received, verifies the accuracy of the information 

provided and reconciles as necessary. Senate Transcripts of Service, including all official retirement and benefits documentation, are provided to other federal agencies 

when Senate Members and staff are hired elsewhere in the government. EBS is responsible for the administration and tracking of employees placed in Leave Without 

Pay (LWOP) to perform military service and the occasional civilian appointment to 

an international organization. EBS also handles most of the stationery and forms 

inventory ordering and maintenance for the Disbursing Office. EBS processes employment verifications for loans, the Bar Exam, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), OPM, and Department of Defense (DOD), among others. Unemployment 

claim forms are completed, and employees are counseled on their eligibility. Department of Labor billings for unemployment compensation paid to Senate employees 

are reviewed in EBS and submitted by voucher to the Accounting Section for payment, as are the employee fees associated with FSAs. Designations of Beneficiary 

for Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI), Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), and unpaid compensation are filed and checked by EBS. 

General Activities 

EBS assisted with the transition of Senator Corzine and his staff as he resigned 

his Senate seat to become Governor of New Jersey, as well as the transition of Senator Menendez and his staff to the Senate from his seat in the House. EBS also 

provided counseling to all outgoing Senators, and provided their outgoing staff with 

office talks and individual counseling. Additionally, EBS provided counseling to committee and leadership staff affected by leadership changes. 

EBS conducted agency-wide seminars on CSRS and FERS and hosted a seminar 

with the D.C. Department of Employment Services in December for all potentially 

outgoing staff. This seminar was very helpful to staff in providing pointers and references in applying for new employment. 

EBS staff attended interagency meetings on the development and understanding 

of the new FEDVIP program and the Benefeds Portal that will combine third-party 

administration of FSA, LTCI and the new FEDVIP programs. EBS also attended 

government-wide TSP meetings to keep abreast of new regulations and procedures. 

Approximately 500 employees changed plans during the annual FEHB OS. These 

changes were processed and reported to carriers very quickly. This year we were 

again able to offer Senate employees access to the online ‘‘Checkbook Guide to 

Health Plans’’ to research and compare FEHB plans. This tool will remain available 

to staff throughout the year. Once again, the Disbursing Office hosted a FEHB OS 

Health Fair, with over 1,200 employees attending. Senate enrollment in the new 

Dental and Vision Insurance plans was over 1,600. 

There has been significant coordination with the SAA Computer Center to effect 

computer enhancements and provide additional automated forms to the EBS data-
150 

base. This has provided greater efficiency and increased accuracy of information. In 

addition, EBS created several ‘‘fillable forms’’ for use by EBS staff. 

EBS is in the process of building a sectional electronic ‘‘library’’ of scanned documents on our shared directory. This library of samples, documentation, rulings and 

other benefits will help to teach new personnel to ensure consistent EBS output. 

The library will also be a valuable COOP resource. 

DISBURSING OFFICE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Headed by the Deputy for Financial Management, the mission of Disbursing Office Financial Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all central financial policies, 

procedures, and activities, to process and pay expense vouchers within reasonable 

time frames, to work toward producing an auditable consolidated financial statement for the Senate and to provide professional customer service, training and confidential financial guidance to all Senate accounting locations. In addition, the Financial Management group is responsible for the compilation of the annual operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on Appropriations as well as for the formulation, presentation and execution of the budget 

for the Senate. On a semiannual basis, this group is also responsible for the compilation, validation and completion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Disbursing Office Financial Management is segmented into three functional departments: Accounting, Accounts Payable, and Budget. The Accounts Payable Department is subdivided into three sections: Audit, Disbursement and Vendor/SAVI. The 

Deputy coordinates the activities of the three functional departments, establishes 

central financial policies and procedures, acts as the primary liaison to the HR Administrator, and carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk and the Secretary 

of the Senate. 

ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT

During fiscal year 2006, the Accounting Department approved in excess of 53,000 

expense reimbursement vouchers, processed 1,300 deposits for items ranging from 

receipts received by the Senate operations, such as the Senate’s revolving funds, to 

cancelled subscription refunds from Member offices. General ledger maintenance 

also prompted the entry of thousands of adjustment entries that include the entry 

of all appropriation and allowance funding limitation transactions, all accounting 

cycle closing entries, and all non-voucher reimbursement transactions such as payroll adjustments, COLA budget uploads, stop payment requests, travel advances and 

repayments, and limited payability reimbursements. The department began scanning all documentation for journal vouchers, deposits, accounting memos, and letters of certification to facilitate both storage concerns and COOP backup. 

This year the Accounting Department assisted in the validation of various system 

upgrades and modifications, including the testing required to implement Db2 

version 8 Compatibility and New Features modes, and an upgrade to the mainframe 

operating system to Z/OS. During January 2006, the Accounting Department with 

contract support completed the 2005 year-end process to close and reset revenue, expense, and budgetary general ledger accounts to zero. The new CD log was developed and extensive regression testing was required. The log is now fully functional. 

Document purge and rollover were turned over to the IT group as the department 

geared up for 2006 fiscal year-end closing activities. 

The Department of the Treasury’s monthly financial reporting requirements include a Statement of Accountability that details all increases and decreases to the 

accountability of the Secretary of the Senate, such as checks issued during the 

month and deposits received, as well as a detailed listing of cash on hand. Also, reported to the Department of the Treasury on a monthly basis is the Statement of 

Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts, a summary 

all activity of all monies disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of the Senate. All activity by appropriation account is reconciled with 

the Department of the Treasury on a monthly and annual basis. The annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement is also used in the reporting to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part of the submission of the annual 

operating budget of the Senate. 

This year, the Accounting Department transmitted all federal tax payments for 

federal, Social Security, and Medicare taxes withheld from payroll expenditures, as 

well as the Senate’s matching contribution for Social Security, and Medicare to the 

Federal Reserve Bank. The Department also performed quarterly reporting to the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and annual reporting and reconciliation to the IRS 

and the Social Security Administration. Payments for employee withholdings for 

state income taxes were reported and paid on a quarterly basis to each state with 
151 

applicable state income taxes withheld. Monthly reconciliations were performed with 

the National Finance Center regarding the employee withholdings and agency 

matching contributions for the TSP. 

There are also internal reporting requirements such as the monthly ledger statements for all Member offices and all other offices with payroll and non-payroll expenditures. These ledger statements detail all of the financial activity for the appropriate accounting period with regard to official expenditures in detail and summary 

form. It is the responsibility of the Accounting Department to review and verify the 

accuracy of the statements before Senate-wide distribution. 

The Accounting Department, in conjunction with the Deputy for Financial Management, continues to work closely with the SAA Finance Department in completing 

the corrective actions that were identified during our Pro-forma financial statements 

auditability assessment. Based on the results of this exercise, 23 corrective actions 

were suggested including an action plan and proposed schedule to have them corrected. Some of the actions were rather simple to implement while others will take 

significantly longer. Of the 23 corrective actions noted, 18 have been completed and 

5 are still in process. 

Accounting also has a budget division whose primary responsibility is compiling 

the annual operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to the 

Committee on Appropriations. The Budget division is responsible for the preparation, issuance and distribution of the budget justification worksheets (BJW). In fiscal year 2006, the budget justification worksheets were mailed to the Senate accounting locations and processed in December. The budget baseline estimates for fiscal year 2007 were reported to OMB by mid-January, via the upgraded MAX database. 

During January, the Senate Budget Analyst is responsible for the preparation of 

1099’s and the prompt submission of forms to the IRS before the end of the month. 

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

Vendor/Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry Section 

The Vendor/Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) Section maintains the accuracy and integrity of the Senate’s central vendor (payee) file for the prompt completion of new vendor file requests and service requests related to the Disbursing office’s Web-based payment tracking system known as SAVI. This section also assists 

the IT Department performing periodic testing and monitoring the performance of 

the SAVI system. 

Currently, more than 14,400 vendor records are stored in the vendor file. Daily 

requests for new vendor addresses or updates to existing vendor information are 

processed within 24 hours of being received. In 2004, the A/P Department began 

paying vendors electronically via the ACH. Besides updating mailing addresses, the 

Vendor/SAVI section facilitates the use of ACH by switching the method of payment 

requested by the vendor from check to direct deposit. Whenever a new remittance 

address is added to the vendor file, a standard letter is mailed to vendors requesting 

tax and banking information. If a vendor responds to our letter and indicates they 

would like to receive ACH payments in the future, the method of payment is 

changed. Currently, more than 1,800 vendors and over half of the home state office 

landlords are being paid via ACH. 

SAVI is the Disbursing office’s Web-based payment tracking system. Senate employees can electronically create, save, and file expense reimbursement forms, track 

their progress, and get detailed information on payments. The most common service 

requests are requests for system user ids, system passwords and to activate deactivated accounts. Employees may also request an alternative expense payment method. An employee can choose to have their payroll set up for direct deposit or paper 

check, but can have their expenses reimbursed by a method different from their salary payment method. 

The Vendor/SAVI section works closely with the A/P Disbursements group resolving returned ACH payments. ACH payments are returned periodically for a variety 

of reasons, including incorrect account numbers, incorrect ABA routing numbers, 

and, in rare instances, a nonparticipating financial institution. 

The Vendor/SAVI section electronically scans and stores all supporting documentation of existing vendor records and new vendor file requests. Currently electronic records for over 9,000 vendors have been verified against paper records and 

the paper files certified for destruction. In the near future, this section will assist 

the IT Department in testing an automatic e-mail notification system which will 

alert vendors when an EFT payment has been made and will provide pertinent payment information. 
152 

During 2006, the Vendor/SAVI section processed over 2,400 vendor file requests, 

completed nearly 1,800 SAVI service requests, mailed over 1,100 vendor information 

letters, and converted over 500 vendors to direct deposit. 

The SAVI web-based system was upgraded in 2006 to version 4.0, and the section 

participated in testing of new features and functionality. 

Disbursements Department 

The department received and processed over 158,000 expense claims. The department also wrote more than 34,000 expense checks and approximately 57,500 direct 

deposit reimbursements were transmitted via ACH. The department has experienced a slight increase of roughly 5.7 percent in the number of checks written and 

a slight increase of 2 percent in the number of ACH payments. The department’s 

goal is to reduce the number of checks and increase the number of ACH payments 

sent out. The department suffered no performance loss, ensuring that all vendors 

and employees continued to receive timely and accurate payments. ACH and check 

printing capabilities were established at the ACF. The ACF is stocked so COOP initiatives can be carried out. A new version of Checkwriter was installed as part of 

the release of Web FMIS version 11. 

After vouchers are paid, they are sorted and filed by document number. Vouchers 

are grouped in 6-month ‘‘clusters’’ to accommodate their retrieval for the semi-annual Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Currently, files are maintained for the 

current period and two prior periods in-house as space is limited. Previously, older 

documents were stored in the department’s warehouse, but were successfully transferred to the SSF in February 2006. 

A major function of the department is to prepare adjustment documents. Adjustments are varied and include the following: preparation of foreign travel advances 

and vouchers, reimbursements for expenses incurred by Senate leadership, reissuance of items held as accounts receivable collections, re-issuance of payments for 

which non-receipt is claimed, and various supplemental adjustments received from 

the Payroll Department. Such adjustments are usually disbursed by check, but an 

increasing number are now handled electronically through the ACH. Paper payroll 

check registers were replaced by an electronic version using Reveal software. A 

spreadsheet was also created to track cases of non-receipt of salary checks, including 

stop payment requests and reissuance. 

During 2006, while small in number, some ACH returns occurred. All rejected 

items are logged into an ACH Reports folder. They are classified as either Payroll 

or Accounts Payable, and the actual daily reports are also scanned into the folder. 

Once logged in, the payroll items are forwarded to the Payroll Department, and the 

non-payroll items are forwarded to Vendor/SAVI for appropriate corrective action. 

The Accounts Payable Disbursements Department prepares mailing labels for the 

distribution of the monthly ledgers to the 140 accounting locations throughout the 

Senate. Although the ledgers are sorted and sent out by Accounting, the Disbursements Group maintains the file of how and where the statements are to be delivered. The main objective of this process is to have each office receive their ledger 

statements for the month just ended by the 10th of the following month. 

The Department also prepares the forms required by the Department of Treasury 

for stop payments. Stop payments are requested by employees who have not received salary or expense reimbursements, and vendors claiming non-receipt of expense checks. During this year, the A/P Disbursement Supervisor and the Accounts 

Payable Manager continued using the Department of Treasury—Financial Management Service (FMS) online stop pay and check retrieval process known as PACER. 

The PACER system allows us to electronically submit stop-payment requests and 

provides online access to digital images of negotiated checks for viewing and printing. Once a check is viewed, it is printed and may be scanned. Scanned images are 

then forwarded to the appropriate accounting locations via e-mail. During 2006, over 

500 requests were received for check copies. 

The Disbursements Department continues the use of laser checks. The tractor-fed 

check writer system has been dismantled and a new, improved system was developed and implemented. The folder/inserter was purchased and has been installed. 

New hardware and further Checkwriter upgrades were implemented in 2006. The 

result was a user friendly system which has the additional benefits of greater security and a higher degree of accuracy. 

Audit Department 

The Accounts Payable Audit Section is responsible for auditing vouchers and answering questions regarding voucher preparation and the permissibility of expenses 

and advances. This section provides advice and recommendations on the discre-
153 

tionary use of funds to the various accounting locations, identifies duplicate payments submitted by offices, monitors payments related to contracts, trains new administrative managers and chief clerks about Senate financial practices and the 

Senate’s Financial Management Information System, and assists in the production 

of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. 

A major function of the section is monitoring the Fund Advances for travel and 

petty cash. FATS was used to ensure that advances were charged correctly, vouchers repaying such advances were entered, and balances were adjusted for reuse of 

the advance funds. An ‘‘aging’’ process was also performed to ensure that travel advances are repaid in the time specified by the travel advance regulations. Travel advances may be repaid via regular voucher processing, or may be canceled if the corresponding travel is not taken and the funds are returned. 

Late in 2006, a new advance module was placed into service for issuing and tracking advances. The module is part of Web FMIS version 11 and is the first of a twophase project. The first phase has been completed and accommodates issuance, 

tracking, and repayment of advances. The second phase will accommodate entry and 

editing of election dates and Senator-elect vouchers. There is no conceptual difference in the way advances are issued and repaid, only the methodology involved 

in using FATS versus Web. FATS will ultimately be replaced once phase two of Web 

FMIS advances is implemented. 

Concurrently, the Accounts Payable Manager, Deputy for Financial Management, 

and the IT Department participated in discussions with the Senate Committee on 

Rules and Administration which led to a major revision to the Senate Travel Regulations. Among the many changes was a standardization of the number of travel advances any one individual may have outstanding at any given time. Prior to this, 

different entities had different limits and some had no limits at all. A maximum 

of two per individual was established. The advance revisions were included in the 

latest version of Web FMIS. 

The Accounts Payable Audit Section processed in excess of 158,000 expense vouchers in fiscal year 2006, as well as 45,000 uploaded items. In addition, the section 

sanctioned in excess of 56,000 vouchers under authority delegated by the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration. The voucher processing consisted of providing interpretation of Senate rules, regulations and statutes and applying the 

same to expense claims, monitoring of contracts, and direct involvement with the 

Senate’s central vendor file. On average, vouchers greater than $100 that do not 

have any issues or questions are received, audited, sanctioned electronically by the 

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration using Web FMIS and paid within 

10 business days. 

Uploaded items are of two varieties, certified expenses and vendor payments. Certified expenses have been around since the 1980’s and included items such as stationery, telecommunications, postage, and equipment. Currently, the certifications 

include mass transit, mass mail, franked mail, excess copy charges, Photographic 

Studio, and Recording Studio charges. Expenses incurred by the various Senate offices are certified to the Disbursing Office on a monthly basis. The expenses are detailed on a spreadsheet which is also electronically uploaded. The physical voucher 

is audited and appropriate revisions are made. Concentrated effort is put forth to 

ensure certified items appear as paid in the same month they are incurred. 

Vendor uploads are fairly new, and are used to pay vendors for the Stationery 

Room, Senate Gift Shop, state office rentals, and refunds of security deposits for the 

Page School. The methodology is roughly the same as for certifications, but the payments rendered are for the individual vendors. Although these items are generally 

processed and paid quickly, the state office rents are generally paid a few days prior 

to the month of the rental in keeping with a general policy of paying rent in advance. 

The Disbursing Office has sanctioning authority for vouchers of $100 or less. 

These vouchers comprise approximately 60 percent of all vouchers processed. The 

responsibility for sanctioning rests with the Certifying Accounts Payable Specialists 

and are received, audited, and paid within 5 business days of receipt. As in the previous year, Disbursing continued to pass two post-payment audits performed by the 

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 

Additionally, advance documents and non-Contingent Fund vouchers are now 

posted in Audit. Currently, there are three Certifying Accounts Payable Specialists 

who handle the bulk of the sanctioning responsibilities within the group. This, coupled with the reduced flow of vouchers to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, has allowed us to continue with their inclusion in the online sanctioning process. 

The Accounts Payable Audit Group provided training sessions in the use of new 

systems, the process for generation of expense claims, the permissibility of an ex-
154 

pense, and participated with seminars sponsored by the Secretary of the Senate, the 

Sergeant at Arms, and the Library of Congress. The Section trained 10 new Administrative Managers and Chief Clerks and conducted three informational sessions for 

Senate staff through seminars sponsored by the Congressional Research Service 

(CRS). The Accounts Payable group also routinely assists the IT department and 

other groups as necessary in the testing and implementation of the new hardware, 

software, and system applications. Web FMIS version 10 was in use for most of the 

year with the electronic, importable expense summary report (ESR). The section 

participated in testing for the release of Web FMIS version 11 late in the year. 

The cancellation process for advances was upgraded and streamlined in 2006. 

This was necessary to ensure repayment of advances systematically for canceled or 

postponed travel in accordance with Senate Travel Regulations, as well as to provide 

functionality consistent with the release of the advance module in Web FMIS 

version 11. The new process eliminates the need to create zero dollar vouchers, allows the Disbursing Office to completely handle the cancellations in FAMIS, and allows administrative managers to simply void their advance documents. 

DISBURSING OFFICE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Financial Management Information System 

The Disbursing Office Information Technology (IT) Department provides both 

functional and technical assistance for all Senate financial management activities. 

Activities revolve around support of the Senate’s Financial Information System 

(FMIS) which is used by 140 Senate accounting locations (i.e., 100 Senator’s offices, 

20 committees, 20 leadership and support offices, the Office of the Secretary of the 

Senate, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Audit section, and the Disbursing office). Responsibilities include: 

—Supporting current systems; 

—Testing infrastructure changes; 

—Managing and testing new system development; 

—Planning; 

—Managing the FMIS project, including contract management; 

—Administering the Disbursing Office’s Local Area Network (LAN); and 

—Coordinating the Disbursing Office’s Disaster Recovery activities. 

The activities associated with each of these responsibilities are described in more 

detail in the sections that follow. Work during 2006 was supported by the Sergeant 

at Arms (SAA) Technology Services staff, the Secretary’s Information Systems staff, 

and contracts with BearingPoint. 

The SAA Technology Services staff is responsible for providing the technical infrastructure, including hardware (mainframe and servers), operating system software, 

database software, and telecommunications; technical assistance for these components, including migration management, and database administration; and regular 

batch processing. BearingPoint, under contract with the SAA, is responsible for 

operational support, and under contract with the Secretary, for application development. The Disbursing office is the ‘‘business owner’’ of FMIS and is responsible for 

making the functional decisions about FMIS. The three organizations work cooperatively. 

Highlights of the year include: 

—Implementation of two releases of Web FMIS, including integration of the travel 

advance functionality of the FATS; 

—Implementation of a release of SAVI that reduced the number of pages of a 

standard Travel Expense Summary Report from 3 to 2; 

—Implementation of a release of Checkwriter; 

—Implementation of two sets of changes to ADPICS and FAMIS; 

—Testing of a major upgrade to the underlying database, from DB2v7 to DB2v8; 

—Testing of a new mainframe computer; 

—Support of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration’s post payment 

audit of a statistically valid sample of vouchers of $100 or less; 

—Installing new PCs throughout the Disbursing Office; 

—Coordinating and participating in the FMIS portion of a disaster recovery exercise for the Alternate Computing Facility; and 

—Conducting monthly classes and seminars on Web FMIS. 

FMIS is not a single computer system. It is composed of many subsystems that 

provide Senate-specific functionality. These subsystems are outlined in the table 

that begins on the following page. 
155 

Supporting Current Systems 

The IT section supports FMIS users in all 140 accounting locations, the Disbursing Office Accounts Payable, Accounting, Disbursements and Front Office Sections, and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Audit staff. The activities associated with this responsibility include: 

—User support—provide functional and technical support to all Senate FMIS 

users; staff the FMIS ‘‘help desk’’; answer hundreds of questions; and meet with 

chiefs of staff, administrative managers, chief clerks, and directors of various 

Senate offices as requested; 

—Technical problem resolution—ensure that technical problems are resolved; 

—Monitor system performance—check system availability and statistics to identify system problems and coordinate performance tuning activities for database 

access optimization; 

—Security—maintaining user rights for all ADPICS, FAMIS, and Web FMIS 

users; 

—System administration—design, test and make entries to tables that are intrinsic to the system; 

—Support of accounting activities—perform functional testing of the cyclic accounting system activities such as rollover, the process by which tables for the 

new fiscal year are created, and archiving and purging for the current year tables data for lapsed fiscal years; 

—Support the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration post payment 

voucher audit process; and 

—Training—provide functional training to all Senate FMIS users. 

Under the supervision of the IT Group, the contractor created tools to determine 

the sample size, to enable selecting the sample from the universe of vouchers of 

$100 and less, and to determine the acceptable number of discrepancies given the 

sample size and the desired confidence interval. Both audits conducted in 2006 resulted in a favorable finding of zero discrepancies. The audit conducted in April 

2006 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2006, covered 26,162 vouchers and 

the audit conducted in October 2006 for the six-month period ending September 30, 

2006, covered 27,994 vouchers. 
156 

SENATE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 

Subsystem Functionality Source Primary Users Implementation 

FAMIS (Mainframe) ........................................................ General ledger .......................................

Vendor file Administrative functions Security functions 

Off-the-shelf federal system ................. Disbursing Office ................................... October 1998 

ADPICS (Mainframe) ...................................................... Preparation of requisition, purchase 

order, voucher from purchase order, and direct voucher documents.

Electronic document review functions Administrative functions 

Off-the-shelf federal system ................. Sergeant at Arms ..................................

Disbursing Office Secretary of the Senate 

October 1998 

Checkwriter (Client-server) ............................................ Prints checks and check registers as 

well as ACH (Automated Clearing House) direct deposit transmission payments.

Off-the-shelf state government system 

purchased from and adapted to Senate’s requirements.

Disbursing Office ................................... October 1998 

Web FMIS (Intranet) ...................................................... Preparation of voucher, travel advance, 

voucher from advance documents, credit documents and simple commitment and obligation documents.

Entry of detailed budget Reporting functions (described below) Electronic document submission and 

review functions.

Administrative functions 

Custom software developed by contractor. All Senators’ offices .............................. All Committee offices 

All leadership & support offices Secretary of the Senate Sergeant at Arms Disbursing Office 

October 1999—Client Server August 2004—Intranet 

FATS (PC-based) ............................................................ Tracks travel advances and petty cash 

advances (available to Committees only).

Tracks election cycle information We are in the process of integrating 

FATS functionality into Web FMIS. The December 2006 Web FMIS release integrated the travel advance and petty cash advance functionality of FATS.

Developed by SAA Technology Services Disbursing Office ................................... Spring 1983 
157 

Post Payment Voucher Audit (PC-based) ...................... Selects a random sample of vouchers 

for the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to use in conducting a post payment audit. Sanctioning of these documents was delegated to the Financial Clerk.

Excel spreadsheet developed ................. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration And Disbursing Office. Spring 2003 

SAVI (Intranet) ............................................................... As currently implemented, provides 

self-service access (via the Senate’s intranet) to payment information for employees receiving reimbursements.

Administrative functions 

Off the shelf system purchased ............ Senate employees .................................. Pilot—Spring 2002 

Senate-wide—July 2002 

Online ESR (Intranet) .................................................... A component of SAVI through which 

Senate employees can create online Travel/Non-Travel Expense Summary Reports and submit them electronically to their Administrative Manager/Chief Clerk for processing.

Custom software developed by contractor. Senate employees .................................. April 2003 

Secretary’s Report (Mainframe extracts, crystal reports, and client-server ‘‘tool box’’). Produces the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Custom software developed by con- tractor. Disbursing Office ................................... Spring 1999 Ledger Statements (Mainframe database extracts, 

and crystal reports).

Produces monthly reports from FAMIS 

that are sent to all Senate ‘‘accounting locations’’.

Developed by SAA Technology Services. Disbursing Office ................................... Senate Accounting Locations Winter 1999 

Web FMIS Reports (mainframe database extracts, 

crystal reports, and Intranet).

Produces a large number of reports 

from Web FMIS, FAMIS and ADPICS data at summary and detailed levels. Data is updated as an overnight process and can be updated through an online process by accounting locations.

Custom software developed by contractor. Senate Accounting Locations ................ October 1999—Client Serv- er 

April 2005—Intranet 
158 

Testing Infrastructure Changes 

The SAA provides the infrastructure on which FMIS operates, including the mainframe, the database, security hardware and software, the telecommunications network, and a hardware and software installation crew. During 2005 the SAA implemented two major upgrades to the FMIS infrastructure—upgrading the database 

software, DB2, from version 7 to version 8, and installing a new mainframe computer. 

For each upgrade, the Disbursing office tests all FMIS subsystems in a testing 

environment and verifies all FMIS subsystems in the production environment after 

the implementation. The change is implemented and production validation is done 

by the IT section. 

The DB2 upgrade required three such testing and validation periods during the 

spring and summer of 2006 for operating system changes that were pre-requisites 

of the DB2 upgrade, DB2 v8 in ‘‘compatibility mode’’ and DB2v8 in new features 

mode. The new mainframe computer required one validation activity. The SAA installed a new mainframe at the ACF and later at the Primary Computing Facility 

in the Postal Square Building (PCF). 

Managing and Testing New System Development 

During 2006, the FMIS team supervised development, performed extensive integration system testing, and implemented changes to FMIS subsystems. For each, 

implementation and production verification was done over a weekend in order to 

minimize system down time to users. Upgrades to the following systems were done 

during 2006: Web FMIS; SAVI and Online ESR; Checkwriter; and ADPICS and 

FAMIS (for the SAA Finance staff). 

The items selected for development and implementation are based on user requests, suggestions from the SAA technical staff, the contractor, and the Disbursing 

office IT section. The office meets regularly with users. During May and June the 

office met weekly with the Web FMIS users group in order to review the new page 

designs and functionality that were implemented in December 2006. Additionally, 

the office met with the ADPICS/FAMIS users group on a monthly basis. 

Web FMIS 

Over the last three years the office has revamped Web FMIS, creating a ‘‘zeroclient’’ application that can be accessed via an intranet browser, an important milestone in providing critical systems in a disaster situation. This began in August 

2004 with the implementation of Web FMIS r9.0 for pilot offices. By the end of April 

2005, all Web FMIS users were using the intranet version of Web FMIS. A total 

of five upgrades to Web FMIS were implemented in 2005. During 2006, the office 

implemented two releases: 

—Web FMIS r10.3.—Implemented in January 2006, updated the technology for 

and provided more functionality on the Inbox pages and the travel reimbursement mileage rate maintenance page. Additional functionality was added to the 

Documents/Create page and the Budget page, and bugs were fixed. 

—Web FMIS r 11.—Implemented in December 2006, included a rewritten Document Create page that eliminated pop-ups so that the system is not impacted 

by pop-up blockers; made technical changes to support future functionality such 

as attaching scanned invoices and creating vouchers via importing data from 

vendors; and provided more payment information. Additionally, the travel advance and cash advance tracking functionality of the standalone FATS system 

were integrated into Web FMIS. The system edits performed when a travel advance document is submitted electronically indicate whether the office has sufficient funds for the travel advance, based on the total of all outstanding advances allowed for that office and whether the traveler can be given another 

advance, based on the total number of outstanding advances allowed for that 

individual. The system supports the underlying rules associated with travel advances that were issued by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration 

in December 2006. 

During 2006, the office continued to work with the contractor to define the requirements for additional functionality required for the Web FMIS releases planned 

for 2007: 

—Web FMIS r12.—Planned for Summer 2007, will add the ability to ‘‘import’’ invoice data from an outside vendor in order to create a voucher with minimal 

retyping. (This process is similar to the ‘‘import’’ process by which data from 

an online ESR, created via SAVI, is used to create a travel voucher). 
159 

—Web FMIS r13.—Planned for Winter 2007, will be a pilot of paperless voucher 

processing, which requires adding electronic signature and documentation imaging functionality. 

Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry and Online ESR.—SAVI enables Senate staff 

to check the status of reimbursements, whether via check or direct deposit referencing an online ESR. The Online ESR function enables Senate staff to create expense summary reports, both travel and non-travel. These documents can be imported into Web FMIS, reducing the data entry tasks for voucher preparation. The 

SAVI system was upgraded once in 2006. Release 4.0, implemented in December 

2006, reduced the number of pages of an average Travel ESR from 3 to 2. The reformatted Travel ESR collapses any sections in which there are no expenses and has 

a condensed signature block. 

Checkwriter.—The Disbursing office makes payments via direct deposit and check 

using the Checkwriter software. Release 6.0, implemented in December 2006, contains a rewritten security component. 

ADPICS and FAMIS.—The Sergeant at Arms finance staff are the primary users 

of ADPICS. ADPICS is a mainframe system that provides integrated procurement, 

receiving and voucher preparation functions that are not included in Web FMIS. 

The SAA finance staff requested a number of changes that would support more efficient use of ADPICS. These changes were implemented in the following two releases 

during 2006: 

—March 2006.—Changes were made to twenty-five ADPICS and FAMIS screens. 

The most important of these affected the master vendor table and enables storing the vendor’s DUNS and TINS numbers at the vendor suffix level. This allows the Disbursing Office to continue to use the same vendor number when 

a company changes names. This helps the SAA finance staff query data by vendor number. Other changes ranged from adding fields on specific screens, modifying the titles of function keys that provide direct links to other screens so that 

they show the screen number instead of a short screen name, modification of 

query results, modification of calculations, and providing the ability to link directly from FAMIS to ADPICS; and 

—October 2006.—Changes were made to twelve ADPICS screens. Many of these 

changes facilitated ‘‘round-trip’’ linking from one screen to another and then 

back to the original. Others enabled seeing more records on a list by specifying 

a starting point or expanding the number of pages displayed. 

Planning 

The Disbursing Office IT group performs two main planning activities: 

—Schedule coordination—planning and coordinating a rolling 12-month schedule; 

and 

—Strategic planning—setting the priorities for further system enhancements. 

Schedule Coordination 

In 2006, this group continued to hold two types of meetings among the Disbursing 

office, SAA and the contractor to coordinate schedules and activities. These are: 

—Project specific meetings—a useful set of project specific working meetings, each 

of which has a weekly set meeting time and meets for the duration of the 

project (e.g., Document Purge meetings and Web FMIS requirements meetings); 

and 

—Technical meeting—a weekly meeting among the Disbursing Office staff (IT and 

functional), SAA Technical Services staff, and the contractor to discuss the active projects, including scheduling activities and resolving issues. 

Strategic Planning 

The FMIS strategic plan has a longer time horizon than the rolling 12-month time 

frame of the technical meeting schedule. It is designed to set the direction and priorities for further enhancements. In 2002 a five-year strategic plan was written by the 

IT and Accounting staff for Disbursing Office Strategic Initiatives. This detailed description of five strategic initiatives formed the base for the Secretary of the Senate’s request in 2002 for $5 million in multi-year funds for further work on the 

FMIS project. The five strategic initiatives are: 

—Paperless Vouchers—Imaging of Supporting Documentation and Electronic Signatures.—Beginning with a feasibility study and a pilot, implement new technology, including imaging and electronic signatures, that will reduce the Senate’s dependence on paper vouchers. This will enable continuation of voucher 

processing operations from any location should an emergency occur; 

—Web FMIS.—Respond to requests from the Senate’s Accounting Locations for 

additional functionality in Web FMIS; 
160 

—Payroll System.—Respond to requests from the Senate’s Accounting Locations 

for online real time access to payroll data; 

—Accounting Subsystem Integration.—Integrate Senate-specific accounting systems, improve internal controls, and eliminate errors caused by re-keying of 

data; and 

—CFO Financial Statement Development.—Provide the Senate with the capacity 

to produce auditable financial statements that will obtain an unqualified opinion. 

Managing the FMIS Project 

The responsibility for managing the FMIS project was transferred to the IT group 

during the summer of 2003 and includes developing the task orders with contractors 

overseeing their work and reviewing invoices. In 2006, three new task orders were 

executed: Web FMIS FATS enhancement; Imaging and signature design and electronic invoicing enhancement continuation; and Service year 2007 extended operational support. 

In addition, work continued under two task orders executed in prior years: Web 

FMIS r10; SAA finance system and reporting enhancements; and Service year 2006 

extended operational support (which covers activities from September 2005 to August 2006). 

Administering the Disbursing Office’s Local Area Network (LAN) 

The Disbursing office administers its own Local Area Network (LAN), which is 

separate from the LAN for the rest of the Secretary’s Office. Our LAN Administrator’s activities included: Office-wide LAN Maintenance and Upgrade; and Projects 

for the Payroll and Benefits Section. 

Office-wide LAN maintenance and upgrade 

The Disbursing Office maintained the existing workstations with appropriate upgrades including: Installing new PCs for the staff; Installing new servers for the 

Disbursing office LAN; and Implementing the Web-based version of FedLine, the 

software through which direct deposit payments are sent to the Federal Reserve. 

Projects for Payroll and Employee Benefits Sections 

The Disbursing Office continued to support the Payroll/Benefits Imaging system, 

developed by SAA staff, which captures and indexes payroll documents turned in 

at the front counter electronically. This is a critical system for Payroll and Employee 

Benefits sections. 

Coordinating the Disbursing Office(s Disaster Recovery Activities 

In the fall, the Sergeant at Arms technical staff conducted a disaster recovery test 

of the Senate’s computing facilities, including FMIS functions. The test involved 

switching the Senate’s network from accessing systems at the PCF to the ACF and 

powering down the PCF. The SAA’s primary purpose was to test the technical process of switching to the ACF, although due to work constraints, only a limited 

amount of time was available for functional testing. In essence, FMIS systems and 

data would be ‘‘failed-over’’ to the ACF, made available for testing for the functional 

testing window, and then the systems would be ‘‘failed back’’ to the PCF, but that 

the data would not be ‘‘failed back’’. Thus, any changes made while testing at the 

ACF would not be reflected in production data. 

The Disbursing Office staff set minimal goals of accessing all critical FMIS subsystems. While the Disbursing Office IT staff coordinated activities, the actual testing was done by Disbursing Office functional and technical staff, the contractor, and 

SAA technical staff. Disbursing IT staff and the contractor tested ADPICS/FAMIS, 

Web FMIS, SAVI, and Checkwriter. Disbursing payroll staff and SAA technical staff 

tested the payroll system. 

Within the limited scope of the test, the Disbursing Office successfully tested all 

the critical components of FMIS, with the exception of (a) printing requisition, purchase order and voucher documents from ADPICS for SAA finance (b) critical batch 

processes which were not tested (e.g. taking a a single document from data entry 

in Web FMIS through payment in FAMIS). The Disbursing Office has requested 

that the SAA conduct disaster recovery tests twice a year and that additional system components be available to test at each successive test. 

Disbursing Office COOP Activities 

The Disbursing Office has had a Continuation of Operations Plan (COOP) since 

2001. This document addresses issues beyond the scope of disaster recovery. Normal 

maintenance is performed on this document to ensure that it remains up-to-date 

and viable. In addition to the success of disaster recovery testing in December, Dis-
161 

bursing has also completed the setup and pre-positioning of essential equipment and 

supplies. 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES

1. CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION

The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and coordinates programs 

directly related to the conservation and preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of the Senate has statutory authority. This includes: 

deacidification of paper and prints, phased conservation for books and documents, 

collection surveys, exhibits, and matting and framing for the Senate leadership. 

Over the past year, the Office of Conservation and Preservation has embossed 335 

books and matted and framed 551 items for Senate leadership, as well as matting 

and framing six items for the 55th Inaugural ceremonies. For more than 25 years, 

the office has bound a copy of Washington’s Farewell Address for the annual ceremony. Last year, the office rebound in leather and added 96 new pages to the Farewell Address sign-in book for Senators who read the address and fabricated a new 

box to house the book. In 2006, a volume was bound and read by Senator Ken 

Salazar. 

As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library Collection Condition Survey, the office 

continued to conduct an annual treatment of books identified by the survey as needed conservation or repair. In 2006 conservation treatments were completed for 99 

volumes of a 7,000 volume collection of House Hearings. Specifically, treatment involved recasing each volume as required, using alkaline end sheets, replacing acidic 

tab sheets with alkaline paper, cleaning the cloth cases, and replacing black spine 

title labels of each volume as necessary. The Office of Conservation and Preservation will continue preservation of the remaining 3,750 volumes. 

The office assisted the Senate Library with 608 books sent to the Library Binding 

section of the Government Printing Office (GPO) for binding. Additionally, the Office 

of Conservation and Preservation worked with the Senate Library to create four exhibits located in the Senate Russell building basement corridor. This office also completed the restoration of 55 volumes of House hearings for the Senate Library that 

had water and mold damage. These books were rebound with new end sheets and 

new covers using the old spines when possible. 

The Office of Conservation and Preservation continues to assist Senate offices 

with conservation and preservation of documents, books, and various other items. 

For example, the office continues to monitor the temperature and humidity in the 

Senate Library storage areas, the vault and warehouse for preservation and conservation purposes. 

2. CURATOR

The Office of Senate Curator, on behalf of the Senate Commission on Art, develops and implements the museum and preservation programs for the United States 

Senate. The office collects, preserves, and interprets the Senate’s fine and decorative 

arts, historic objects, and specific architectural features; and exercises supervisory 

responsibility for the historic chambers in the Capitol under the jurisdiction of the 

Commission. Through exhibitions, publications, and other programs, the office educates the public about the Senate and its collections. 

Collections: Commissions, Acquisitions, and Management 

A painting of Senator Bob Dole for the Senate Leadership Portrait Collection was 

officially unveiled in the Old Senate Chamber on July 25, 2006 and a mural depicting the authors of the Connecticut Compromise was unveiled on September 12, 2006 

in the Senate Reception Room. Other important commissioned works in progress include leadership portraits of Senators Robert C. Byrd, Tom Daschle, and Trent Lott; 

all three are scheduled to be completed in 2008. 

Three hundred sixty-two objects were accessioned into the Senate Collection, including: 126 Senate Chamber Gallery passes, dating from 1890 to the present; tickets for various joint sessions of Congress held in 2006; ephemera related to nominations, new Congresses, laying in state ceremonies, and portrait unveilings; china 

used in the Senate Restaurant in the 1920s and 1930s; and historic prints and photographs of the Capitol and its interior, including a circa 1890 stereoview of the Senate Chamber, a rare 1827 wood engraving of the west front of the Capitol, and an 

1872 cartoon by Thomas Nast. 

The Senate Commission on Art approved the acquisition of a monumental, Civil 

War-era painting (recently discovered in New York State) of Henry Clay in the U.S. 

Senate. This painting is a rare depiction of the historic Old Senate Chamber. Addi-
162 

tionally, it serves as a group portrait memorializing Senator Clay and twelve of his 

19th century Senate colleagues. The painting will require extensive conservation. 

As part of an ongoing effort to locate and recover historic objects associated with 

the Senate, a historic Russell Building partner desk, built by George Cobb, was located. It was recently returned to the Senate from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. 

Forty-four new foreign gifts were reported to the Select Committee on Ethics and 

transferred to the Curator’s Office. They were catalogued and are maintained by the 

office in accordance with the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act. Appropriate disposition of 27 foreign gifts was completed following established procedures. 

Preparations continued for new curatorial storage spaces in the CVC and the SSF. 

The office worked with the SAA staff to select a vendor to provide specialized preservation storage equipment for the two Curator storage rooms in the CVC. Installation of the equipment is planned for late 2007. Preparations are nearing completion 

for the storage room in the SSF, with specialized climate control and security. Objects will be moved into the space in the spring of 2007. 

Along with the expansion of curatorial storage spaces, improved monitoring plans 

were developed to track the environmental conditions in these spaces. Consistency 

in temperature and relative humidity will be monitored through a single electronic 

system that collects data from all collection storage areas, as well as some of the 

historic spaces in the Capitol where collections are on display. After careful review 

by a committee representing the Curator’s Office, Senate Security, Secretary’s Information Systems, and Senate IT, a system was selected earlier this year and installation should take place this spring. Temporary monitors were installed in the new 

SSF Curator room and have greatly aided in evaluating and adjusting the environmental systems. 

Monitoring for biological agents harmful to collections was addressed through the 

development of an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM). The office has initiated 

IPM monitoring in its current collection storage spaces. 

The Curator’s office completed its project to photograph the 102 historic Senate 

Chamber desks (which includes the 100 on the Senate floor and 2 desks currently 

in storage). One set of transparencies will be stored off-site for emergency purposes, 

while a second working set will be used for the web, image requests, and future publications. The project was completed ahead of schedule. 

The Curator’s staff began a comprehensive and detailed survey of the Senate 

Chamber chairs. Twenty-seven chairs (seat and chair frames) were examined during 

Senate recesses to determine past occupants and to identify changes in Senate Cabinet Shop construction over the years. It is hoped that this study will enable the 

identification and preservation of important chairs that still remain in the Senate, 

and also educate Curator’s staff so that timely and informed decisions can be made 

on chairs that might come up for sale or donation. 

In keeping with established procedures, all Senate Collection objects on display 

were inventoried, noting any changes in location. In addition, as directed by S. Res. 

178 (108th Congress, 1st sess.), the office submitted inventories of the art and historic furnishings in the Senate to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The inventories, submitted every six months, are compiled by the Curator’s office with assistance from the SAA and the AOC Senate Superintendent. 

Conservation and Restoration 

A total of 12 objects received conservation treatment in 2006, including 9 paintings and 3 decorative art objects. 

Several conservation projects were carried out to prepare both fine and decorative 

art objects for loan. In February 2006, a fine art services company was contracted 

to remove a monumental painting, The Battle of Chapultepec, by James Walker, 

from display at the former Marine Corps Historical Museum in Washington, D.C., 

where it had been on loan since 1982. The company disassembled the frame and 

constructed four crates to transport the painting and frame to the Thomas Gilcrease 

Institute of American History and Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where it is now on loan. 

The Gilcrease Museum provides an excellent venue for continued public display of 

the painting within the context of the history of the southwest region of the country. 

Two large paintings displayed in the Senate wing received conservation treatment 

in situ during the August 2006 recess: The First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln by Francis Bicknell Carpenter, and Daniel Webster 

by James Henry Wright. The AOC assisted with both projects by providing scaffolding in the stairwells for access to the paintings by the conservators. 

Also during the August recess, conservators installed the oil on canvas painting 

depicting the authors of the Connecticut Compromise by Bradley Stevens on the 

upper west wall of the Senate Reception Room. 
163 

The office contracted a report for a condition assessment and treatment options 

for the Senate’s historic 19th century Cornelius & Baker armorial chandelier, and 

worked with staff at the Smithsonian Institution to study its finishes. Also, staff 

conducted research into the electrification of gasoliers in the Capitol; all in an effort 

to provide an informed use and treatment recommendation for the chandelier to the 

Commission on Art. 

The Curator’s staff participated in training sessions for the USCP regarding the 

care and protection of art in the Capitol, and continued to educate the housekeeping 

personnel on maintenance issues related to the fine and decorative art collections. 

Historic Preservation 

The Curator’s office worked with the AOC and the SAA to review, comment, plan, 

and document Senate-side construction projects that involve or affect historic resources. Construction and conservation efforts that required considerable review and 

assistance included: the Brumidi Corridor mural conservation; egress modifications; 

skylight repair of Senate grand stairwells; S–127 mural conservation; wireless antenna installation; Senate Chamber bench refinishing and re-upholstering. The office continued to refine communication procedures with those organizations that undertake building projects, as well as the Senate community. As a result of this effort, schedule coordination between the trade shops, the Curator, and the occupants 

has improved, and the art and architectural objects in project areas are better protected. In addition, the office worked to increase services by facilitating projects for 

Capitol offices. 

One of the most ambitious preservation undertakings by the office is the restoration and rehabilitation of the Senate Reception Room. Anticipated to be a joint venture with the AOC, the project will highlight the significant elements of the room 

through restoration and interpretation. An advisory board was impaneled by the 

Commission on Art to provide counsel with this prominent project and the advisory 

board held its first meeting. 

The Curator’s office continued to provide research services regarding architectural 

history, and to disseminate important discoveries for the benefit of the Senate. During the past year, the office increased knowledge and holdings pertaining to room 

histories, architectural features, and historic images. Research projects included: 

international Minton tile repair and replacement; original doors in the Brumidi Corridors; and compiling searchable annual reports from the Secretary of the Senate, 

the SAA, and the AOC. Another new initiative, with the assistance of the SAA Photographic Studio, was to visually document the leadership suites and committee 

rooms in the Capitol during the 109th Congress. 

Historic Chambers 

The Curator’s staff continued to maintain the Old Senate and Old Supreme Court 

Chambers, and coordinated periodic use of both rooms for special occasions. By 

order of the USCP, the Old Senate Chamber was closed to visitors after September 

11, 2001. However, during eight Senate recesses the historic room is open to Capitol 

Guide and staff-led tours. Twenty-four requests were received from current Members of Congress for after-hours access to the Old Senate Chamber. Twenty-one requests were received by current Members of Congress for admittance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber after-hours. 

In order to enhance existing documentation and to provide an important resource 

for future planning, the office continued to work closely with the AOC and a contractor to oversee the creation of accurate, existing condition drawings of the Old 

Senate Chamber and the Old Supreme Court Chamber that meet the Historic American Building Survey standard. No such detailed drawings exist for these historic 

chambers, or any space within the Capitol, yet this is important historical and archival documentation. Currently, the Old Senate Chamber drawings are undergoing 

final edits and the Old Supreme Court Chamber is being measured. 

Loans To and From the Collection 

A total of 58 historic objects and paintings are currently on loan to the Curator’s 

office on behalf of Senate leadership and officials in the Capitol. The staff added 

loans of one object, returned two paintings at the expiration of their loan periods 

to their respective owners, and renewed loan agreements for 32 other objects. 

The Secretary’s china was distributed and returned four times in 2006. It was 

used for events such as a dinner for the retiring Senators of the 109th Congress, 

and a luncheon and dinner for new Senators. The official Senate china was inventoried and used at 24 receptions for distinguished guests. 
164 

Publications and Exhibitions 

The Curator’s office published the United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art. 

This 500-page book features the Senate’s collection of more than 900 historic 

engravings and lithographs and includes 2 full-length essays and almost 40 short 

essays discussing selected prints. The volume is the first comprehensive publication 

of the Senate’s historic print collection, which represents a 30-year effort to document graphically the 19th and early 20th century history of the Senate, the Capitol, 

and American political history. The diverse illustrations range for inauguration 

ceremonies and impeachment trials to senatorial portraits and political cartoons. 

Represented in the Senate’s graphic art collection are some of the most notable artists who worked in the printmaking medium: Augustus Ko ̈llner, Rembrandt Peal, 

Alexander Hay Ritchie, Thomas Nast, and Joseph Keppler. The Senate Curator and 

Associate Senate Historian co-authored the publication, a companion volume to the 

United States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art, published in 2003. The Curator’s staff 

worked closely with the Government Printing Office (GPO) on the design and printing of the publication. 

The office completed and posted three major interactive exhibits on the Senate 

Web site: Isaac Bassett: A Senate Memoir; The Senate Chamber Desks; and Take 

the Puck Challenge! All three exhibits were developed in conjunction with the Secretary’s Webmaster and a contractor. Isaac Bassett features selections from the historic Isaac Bassett manuscript collection, and is illustrated by images from the Senate’s collection of art and historical objects. It uses Bassett’s own words to illustrate 

life in the 19th century Senate as only the doorkeeper could have described it. His 

unique position as a trusted, long-time employee of the Senate and close confidant 

of many Senators make the stories he included in his memoir both engaging and 

enlightening. The Web site features actual images of Bassett’s handwritten notes 

and an interactive time line. 

The Senate Chamber Desks Web site chronicles the history of these historic furnishings. Viewers are able to see where their Senators sit, learn specific information 

about each desk (including biographical information on Senators who occupied each 

desk, and conservation and restoration records), and read stories related to the history of the desks. 

Take the Puck Challenge! features quizzes, games, and puzzles to introduce viewers to the political cartoons of the 19th century satirical magazine Puck. It is part 

of a larger Web site that features all of the Senate’s Puck cartoons. 

Another interactive Web exhibit, Advise and Consent: The Drawings of Lily 

Spandorf, recently went live. Advise and Consent explores the work of Lily 

Spandorf, an artist sent to sketch the filming of the Otto Preminger movie of the 

same name, filmed in and around the Capitol in 1962. Ms. Spandorf’s sketches are 

now owned by the Senate. 

As part of an ongoing program to provide more information about the Capitol and 

its spaces, the office developed a brochure for S–238, the Strom Thurmond Room, 

and posted several brochures on the Senate Web site, including: The U.S. Senate 

Leadership Portrait Collection; The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and 

The Vice Presidential Bust Collection. The office also added to the Senate Web site’s 

fine art pages by publishing the biographical and subject information from the 

United States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art for 160 works of art. 

In May 2006, at the request of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, six historic photographs of the Capitol were enlarged, framed, and installed in 

the basement of the Senate Russell Building in order to enhance the space. The Office of Senate Curator also continued to be a significant contributor to Unum, the 

Secretary of the Senate’s newsletter. 

The office continued to develop an oral history program related to the Senate’s 

art and historical collections. Several artists were interviewed related to their work 

on recently commissioned portraits. It is anticipated that a Web site on the first 

phase of this educational project will be posted this year. 

Policies and Procedures 

The Senate Curatorial Advisory Board met in February, 2006. The board reviewed 

the Battle of Chapultepec loan; the Connecticut Compromise mural; the Senator Bob 

Dole portrait; the Cornelius and Baker historic chandelier; as well as new acquisitions. The historic structures report for the Senate east vestibule, adjacent stairwell, 

and Small Senate Rotunda was presented, and the restoration of these historic 

spaces was discussed. The board continued to provide invaluable assistance to the 

Senate on curatorial and preservation matters throughout the year. Composed of respected scholars and curators, this 12-member board was established to provide expert advice to the Commission on Art regarding the Senate’s art and historic collec-
165 

tions and preservation program, and to assist in the acquisition and review of new 

objects for the collection. 

In 2006 the Senate passed legislation (S. Res. 629) establishing a procedure for 

affixing and removing permanent and semi-permanent artwork in the Senate wing 

of the Capitol and in the Senate Office Buildings. The new regulations require the 

Commission on Art to review any such proposals to add such permanent or semipermanent art, and the Senate to give its formal approval before any such proposals 

may be adopted. 

Building on the historic mirror survey completed in 2005, the office developed a 

management policy and procedures for the collection, as well as care and maintenance plans. This program will ensure that the Senate’s impressive collection of 

nearly 100 ornate mirrors in the Capitol receives the treatment necessary to preserve them for future generations. 

Collaborations, Educational Programs, and Events 

The much anticipated nine-hour documentary on the Capitol and Congress developed by C–SPAN aired in July. Providing a detailed history of the building and institution, the Curator’s office and the Historical Office worked closely with C–SPAN 

over a two-year period on various aspects of the historical content, filming, and 

interviews. 

The office continued to assist CVC staff on several initiatives for the new Visitor 

Center. These include the interactive programs for the exhibition area and the development of a plan for artwork in the CVC. 

The Senate Curator and staff gave lectures on the Senate’s art and historical collections to various historical groups and art museums. 

Office Administration 

The SSF was completed in late 2005. The office worked for several years with the 

SAA staff to develop plans for space within the warehouse. While the museum-quality space will be finalized this spring, other storage space assigned to the Curator 

was occupied in January, 2006. The office transferred several historic furnishings 

and other Senate-related objects, exhibit and art shipping materials, and publications to the completed storage area. As part of that task, material was re-inventoried, and new tracking numbers were assigned. 

With the assistance of the Office of Education and Training, the staff continued 

work on developing a three-year strategic plan for the Office of Senate Curator. This 

will be an important document for the office as it moves forward with its many conservation, preservation, and education initiatives. 

Automation 

The office continued to work on developing an organization plan and procedures 

for all types of files and media collected and maintained by the Curator’s office. 

Paper and electronic files have increased substantially in the last ten years and 

maintaining systematic organization of these various documents is imperative. The 

results will greatly improve response time to information requests, search capabilities for researchers, and the safety of significant reference materials. 

Objectives for 2007 

Preparations to move Senate collections into the new curatorial storage spaces 

will be a major initiative in 2007. Once outstanding issues related to control of the 

environment are addressed at the SSF, the office will move more than 75 historic 

objects, including furniture, rugs, paintings, and a chandelier, to the museum-quality space. In association with the AOC and SAA, the office will also develop a Disaster Recovery Plan for this storage space, to mitigate the potential affect of disasters upon collection objects. 

The office will oversee installation of collection storage equipment for the two storage spaces in the CVC in the fall of 2007. Museum-quality storage equipment has 

been ordered to house collection objects in these new spaces, in accordance with a 

recently completed Collection Storage Plan. Objects in need of archival re-housing 

will be identified and prioritized as part of the preparations for a collection move 

that will take place in 2008. 

Proposals for an environmental monitoring system that will encompass all collection storage spaces will be assessed and reviewed by the Senate Curator’s office 

with the assistance of other Senate offices. It is intended that environmental monitors will be purchased and installed in phases starting later this spring. 

Conservation and preservation continue to be a priority. Projects in 2007 will include conservation treatment to restore the historic frame and painting, Henry Clay 

in the U.S. Senate, by Phineas Staunton. Other conservation projects include: the 

monumental painting, The Battle of Lake Erie, by William Henry Powell, displayed 
166 

in the east grand stairway of the Senate wing; the portrait of John Adams by 

Eliphalet Frazer Andrews; and the frame for the painting, Sergeants Jasper and 

Newton Rescuing American Prisoners from the British, by John Blake White. 

The office will continue its efforts to locate and recover significant historic Senate 

pieces. It will also embark on developing a plan to highlight the Russell Building 

furniture in preparation for the 100th anniversary of these historic pieces in 2009. 

The microfiche of the Senate collection files will be sent off-site to the National 

Archives for contingency in case of a disaster, along with transparencies documenting several historic photographic albums, the Senate desks, and the more than 

900 historic prints in the Senate collection. 

In 2007 the Office of Senate Curator will complete a reorganization of the Senate 

art Web site to provide easier, more intuitive access to the Senate’s art, historical 

collections, and online exhibits and publications. This task will be undertaken in coordination with the Secretary’s Webmaster and Senate Library staff, and will be an 

important first step in creating and organizing the Senate’s Web content according 

to standardized metadata. 

Also related to the Web site, the office will work with the Historical office and 

staff of the Senate Page School to develop a Web exhibit for high school students 

on the history and art of the Senate. The conservation process for the newly acquired Henry Clay painting will be documented for use on the Senate art Web site 

as part of the office’s education initiatives. Additionally, staff will update The Senate Chamber Desks Web site to reflect the 110th Congress, and will add additional 

historical facts about the desks. 

The office will review its public education programs with an eye toward leveraging 

office assets to greater effectiveness, and developing a long-range strategic plan for 

the program. Several publications will be reprinted, and the office will continue to 

enlarge its offering of brochures on historic rooms by producing one on the Democratic leader’s suite in the Capitol. 

The Office of Senate Curator will continue to administer the current commissioned leadership portraits of Senators Byrd, Daschle, and Lott, and advance efforts 

to commission leadership portraits of Senators Frist and Stevens. 

Historic preservation activities will increase as the office takes a more active role 

in the Capitol’s building projects and maintenance. The office will work to promote 

its preservation services for Senate offices, including providing architectural histories and facilitating projects. The office will also implement a preservation inspection program for the Senate side of the Capitol in order to ensure the immediate 

repair and continued protection of the Senate’s architectural resources. Finally, with 

the AOC, adopting a preservation policy and appointing an historic preservation officer, the Curator’s role in building project review will expand and become more formalized. The office will work with the AOC’s historic preservation officer to define 

a review process and to ensure the highest preservation standards are applied to 

all Capitol projects. 

Responding to the critical conservation priorities identified for the Senate’s historic mirror collection, the Curator’s office will develop and contract a multi-phased 

conservation project. This work will include full conservation of at least three mirrors and on-site consolidation of two mirrors, and will establish procedures and 

standards for a mirror conservation program. Similarly, the office will embark on 

a comprehensive maintenance program for all Senate collections under the purview 

of the Office of Senate Curator. Such a program will help safeguard the objects for 

future generations. 

Additionally, the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board and Senate Reception Room 

Advisory Board will meet, review, and report on projects. The Senate Curator’s 

COOP will be re-evaluated, tabletop exercises conducted, and the COOP document 

updated. 

3. JOINT OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee training and development opportunities for all Senate staff in Washington D.C. and the states. There 

are three branches within the office. The Technical Training branch is responsible 

for providing technical training support for approved software packages and equipment used in either Washington, D.C. or the state offices. This branch provides instructor-led classes; one-on-one coaching sessions; specialized vendor provided training; computer-based training; and informal training and support services. The Professional Training branch provides courses for all Senate staff in areas including: 

management and leadership development, human resources issues and staff benefits, legislative and staff information, new staff and intern information. The Health 

Promotion branch provides seminars, classes and screenings on health and wellness 
167 

issues. This branch also coordinates an annual Health Fair for all Senate employees 

and plans three blood drives every year. 

Training Classes 

The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 658 classes in 2006, drawing 

6,007 participants. This office’s registration desk handled over 32,000 e-mail and 

phone requests for training and documentation. 

Of the above total, in the Technical Training area 273 classes were held with a 

total attendance of 1,226 students. An additional 410 staff received coaching in 160 

sessions on various software packages and other computer related issues. In the 

Professional Development area 385 classes were held with a total attendance of 

4,781 students. 

The Office of Education and Training is available to work with teams on issues 

related to team performance, communication, or conflict resolution. During 2006, 

over 55 requests for special training and team building were met. 

In the Health Promotion area, 2,628 staff participated in Health Promotion activities throughout the year. These activities included: lung function and kidney 

screenings, blood drives, the Health and Fitness Day and seminars on health related 

topics. 

State Training 

Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for D.C. based staff, 

the Office of Education and Training continues to offer the ‘‘State Training Fair’’ 

which began in March 2000. In 2006, two sessions of this program were attended 

by 63 state staff. This office also conducted the State Directors Forum, which was 

attended by 25 state administrative managers and directors. In addition, this office 

has implemented the ‘‘Virtual Classroom’’ which is an internet-based training library of 3,000∂ courses. To date, 392 state office and D.C. staff have accessed a 

total of 903 different lessons using this training option. Furthermore, the Professional Training branch offered 22 Video Teleconferencing classes, which were attended by 323 state staff. 

4. CHIEF COUNSEL FOR EMPLOYMENT

The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is a non-partisan 

office established at the direction of the Joint Leadership in 1993 after enactment 

of the Government Employee Rights Act (GERA), which allowed Senate employees 

to file claims of employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), Senate offices became 

subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations of 11 employment laws. 

The SCCE is charged with the legal defense of Senate offices in employment law 

cases at both the administrative and court levels. Also, on a day-to-day basis, the 

SCCE provides legal advice to Senate offices about their obligations under employment laws. Accordingly, each of the 180 offices of the Senate is an individual client 

of the SCCE, and each office maintains an attorney-client relationship with the 

SCCE. 

The areas of responsibilities of the SCCE can be divided into the following categories: 

—Litigation; 

—Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits; 

—Court-Ordered Alternative Dispute Resolutions; 

—Union Drives, Negotiations, and Unfair Labor Practice Charges; 

—Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)/Americans With Disability Act 

(ADA) Compliance; 

—Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law; 

—Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities; and 

—Preventive Legal Advice. 

Litigation; Mediations; Alternative Dispute Resolutions 

The SCCE defends each of the 180 employing offices of the Senate in all court 

actions, hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to labor and 

employment laws. The SCCE handles cases filed in the District of Columbia and 

cases filed in any of the 50 states. 

OSHA/ADA Compliance 

The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices by assisting them with 

complying with the applicable OSHA and ADA regulations; representing them during Office of Compliance inspections; advising State offices on the preparation of the 

Office of Compliance’s Home State OSHA/ADA Inspection Questionnaires; assisting 
168 

offices in the preparation of Emergency Action Plans; and advising and representing 

Senate offices when a complaint of an OSHA violation has been filed with the Office 

of Compliance or when a citation has been issued. 

In 2006, the SCCE inspected 184 Senate offices to ensure compliance with the 

ADA and OSHA. 

Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities 

The SCCE conducts legal seminars for the managers of Senate offices to assist 

them in complying with employment laws, thereby reducing their liability. 

In 2006, the SCCE gave 71 legal seminars to Senate offices. Among the topics covered were: 

—The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: Management’s Rights and Obligations; 

—Employment Laws You Must Know When Managing a Senate Office; 

—Avoiding Legal Landmines in Your Office; 

—Understanding Sexual Harassment in the Workplace; 

—A Manager’s Guide to Preventing and Addressing Sexual Harassment in the 

Workplace; 

—Keys to Hiring: Reference Checks, Background Checks, and Testing for Illegal 

Drug Use; 

—Hiring the Right Employee: Advertising and Interviewing; 

—Your Office’s Obligation to Give Military Leave; 

—Administering the Student Loan Repayment Program; 

—The Basic Pilot Program for Employment Eligibility Confirmation; 

—Diversity Awareness: The Legal Perspective; 

—Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 

—Legal Pitfalls in Evaluating, Disciplining and Terminating Employees; 

—A Manager’s Guide to Complying with the Family and Medical Leave Act 

(FMLA). 

In addition, at the request of several Member offices, the SCCE developed and 

gave two new seminars: (1) How to Interview Academy Candidates: Appropriate and 

Inappropriate Questions, and (2) How to Interview Applicants for the Page Program: 

Appropriate and Inappropriate Questions. 

Preventive Legal Advice 

The SCCE meets with Members, chiefs of staff, administrative directors, administrative managers, staff directors, chief clerks and counsels at their request to provide legal advice. The purposes are to ensure compliance with the law, prevent litigation and minimize liability in the event of litigation. For example, on a daily 

basis, the SCCE advises Senate offices on matters such as disciplining or terminating employees in compliance with the law, handling and investigating sexual 

harassment complaints, accommodating the disabled, determining wage law requirements, meeting FMLA requirements, and management’s rights and obligations 

under union laws and OSHA. 

Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters 

The SCCE provides legal assistance to employing offices to ensure that their employee handbooks and office policies, supervisors’ manuals, job descriptions, interviewing guidelines, and performance evaluation forms comply with the law. 

Union Drives, Negotiations and Unfair Labor Practice Charges 

In 2006, the SCCE handled one union drive and assisted in negotiations with another union. 

5. SENATE GIFT SHOP

The U.S. Senate Gift Shop was established under the administrative direction and 

supervision of the Secretary of the Senate in October, 1992, (United States Code, 

Title 2, Chapter 4). Since its establishment, the Senate Gift Shop has continued to 

provide service and products that maintain the integrity of the Senate while increasing the public’s awareness of its history. The Gift Shop serves Senators, their 

spouses, staffs, constituents, and the many visitors to the U.S. Capitol complex. 

The products available include a wide range of fine gift items, collectables, and 

souvenirs created exclusively for the U.S. Senate. The services available include special ordering of personalized products and hard-to-find items, custom framing including red-lines and shadow boxes, gold embossing on leather, etching on glass and 

crystal, engraving on a variety of materials, and shipping. 

Additionally, the Gift Shop produces and distributes educational materials to 

tourists and constituents visiting the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings. 
169 

Facilities 

In addition to the three physical locations, the Gift Shop has developed an online 

presence on Webster. The site currently offers a limited selection of products that 

can be purchased by phone, e-mail, or by printing and faxing the order form provided online. Long-term plans are to further develop the Web site to include a greater selection of merchandise, eventually adding an e-commerce component to facilitate online transactions. Along with offering over-the-counter, walk-in sales and limited intranet services, the Gift Shop Administrative Office provides mail order service via the phone or fax, and special order and catalogue sales. 

The Gift Shop also maintains two warehouse facilities. While the bulk of the Gift 

Shop’s stock is held in the SSF, a portion of the Gift Shop’s overstock is maintained 

in the Hart Building. This space also accommodates the Gift Shop’s receiving, shipping and engraving sections. 

Operational procedures for the SSF include having most, if not all, Gift Shop 

product delivered, received, and stored at this location until the need for transfer 

to the Hart, Dirksen, and/or Capitol Building locations. Although the overall management of the SSF is through the SAA, the Director of the Gift Shop has responsibility for the operation and oversight of the interior spaces assigned for Gift Shop 

use. Storing inventory in this centralized, climate-controlled facility provides protection for the Gift Shop’s valuable inventory in terms of physical security as well as 

improved shelf life for perishable and non-perishable items alike. 

Sales Activity 

Sales recorded for fiscal year 2006 were $1,619,739.94. Cost of goods sold during 

this same period were $1,101,734.48, accounting for a gross sales profit of 

$518,005.46. 

In addition to tracking gross profit from sales, the Senate Gift Shop maintains 

a revolving fund and a record of inventory purchased for resale. As of October 1, 

2006, the balance in the revolving fund was $2,105,118.02. The inventory purchased 

for resale was valued at $2,551,847.08. 

Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2006 

Official Congressional Holiday Ornaments 

The year 2006 marked the beginning of the Gift Shop’s fourth consecutive fouryear ornament series. Each ornament in the 2006–2009 series of unique collectables 

will be an image celebrating the day-to-day activities taking place on the Capitol 

grounds. The four images are based on original oil paintings commissioned by the 

Gift Shop. 

Sales of the 2006 holiday ornament exceeded 30,000 ornaments, of which more 

than 7,000 were personalized with engravings designed, proofed, and etched by Gift 

Shop staff. 

Constantino Brumidi Product 

There were several new products developed this past year depicting Brumidi’s art 

in the Capitol. These include two different sets of placemats, one of game birds and 

the other of song birds, and coasters depicting Brumidi floral designs. Three glass 

vases of different sizes and shapes were created. Each contain distinctly different 

bird images deeply etched into the glass, and each can be personalized. A gift set 

of gourmet candy and high quality paper cocktail napkins was created. The napkins 

feature four different images of Constantino Brumidi’s ‘‘Birds of the Capitol’’ which 

are located in the Capitol’s Senate side corridors. 

Christopher Radko ornament 

The Gift Shop designed and created a new and exclusive Holiday Ornament with 

the Christopher Radko Company depicting a full three dimensional likeness of the 

Capitol building. The ornament shows the Capitol as it might look in early evening 

after a light snow has covered the building and its surrounding landscape features. 

Projects and New Initiatives for 2007 

History of the Capitol 

The Gift Shop will purchase for resale the book History of the Capitol, (H. Doc. 

108–240) by Glenn Brown. GPO expects to release History of the Capitol later this 

year, and the Gift Shop plans to purchase a large quantity to ensure availability 

to its customers for an extended period of time. The book will be sold in both Gift 

Shop locations and on the intranet Web site. The book will also be available via 

phone and mail order. 
170 

Congressional Plates 

The Official Congressional Plates for the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses continue to be sold. The 111th plate, the final of the series, has been approved for production. 

Pickard China 

The Gift Shop is working with the Pickard Corporation to recreate a round porcelain box originally developed by Tiffany and Company more than twelve years ago 

and subsequently discontinued by Tiffany. The round box contains a series of four 

images on its perimeter depicting the early meeting places of Congress. The lid depicts a more recent image of the Capitol similar to how it appears today. With Tiffany’s permission, the original designs and colors will be replicated on a white porcelain box. 

Intranet/Webster 

The Gift Shop anticipates a very exciting yet busy and challenging year for the 

Gift Shop as it continues to develops its presence on Webster. Primary considerations include Web site policy, design, and layout, content and additional products 

to be featured. It is the Gift Shop’s intention to eventually incorporate links to the 

offices of the Historical Office, Curator, and Senate Library so that visitors to the 

Web site will have ready access to additional educational information. 

6. HISTORICAL OFFICE

Serving as the Senate’s institutional memory, the Historical Office collects and 

provides information on important events, precedents, dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current and past Senate activities for use by members and staff, 

the media, scholars, and the general public. The office advises Senators, officers, 

and committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-current office files and assists researchers in identifying Senate-related source materials. The office keeps extensive biographical, bibliographical, photographic, and archival information on the 

1,895 former and current Senators. It edits for publication historically significant 

transcripts and minutes of selected Senate committees and party organizations, and 

conducts oral history interviews with key Senate staff. The photo historian maintains a collection of approximately 40,000 still pictures that includes photographs 

and illustrations of Senate committees and most former Senators. The office develops and maintains all historical material on the Senate Web site. 

Editorial Projects 

200 Notable Days: Senate Stories, 1787–2002 

GPO issued 200 Notable Days: Senate Stories, 1787–2002 in October 2006. This 

225-page clothbound volume presents 200 brief stories, which provide a colorful and 

textured outline of the Senate’s historical development through more than two centuries. Historian David McCullough pronounced the work to be ‘‘deftly and 

engagingly done’’ and noted that as the author clearly enjoyed himself ‘‘in this wonderful chronicle, so consequently does the reader.’’ 

The New Members’ Guide to Traditions of the United States Senate 

In support of the November 2006 new members’ orientation program, the Historical Office prepared a 32-page booklet designed to serve as a guide to the Senate’s 

distinguishing customs and rituals. Following a ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ theme, the document begins with ‘‘orientation programs’’ and ‘‘oath taking,’’ and concludes with 

‘‘end-of-session valedictories’’ and ‘‘funerals and memorial services.’’ Among the 29 

topics included are ‘‘Maiden Speeches,’’ ‘‘Seersucker Thursday,’’ ‘‘the Candy Desk,’’ 

‘‘the Golden Gavel Award,’’ and ‘‘Washington’s Farewell Address.’’ Copies are available through the Senate Office of Printing and Document Services. 

Administrative History of the Senate 

Throughout 2006, the assistant historian continued the research and writing for 

this historical account of the Senate’s administrative evolution. This study traces 

the development of the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate and Sergeant at Arms, 

considers 19th and 20th century reform efforts that resulted in the reorganization 

and professionalization of Senate staff, and looks at how the Senate’s administrative 

structure has grown and diversified. Specifically, during the past year the assistant 

historian completed drafts of the first (1789–1814) and third (1836–1861) chapters, 

as well as portions of chapters two (1814–1836) and four (1861–1877). 
171 

‘‘The Idea of the Senate’’ 

For more than two centuries, Senators, journalists, scholars, and other first-hand 

observers have attempted to describe the uniqueness of the Senate, emphasizing the 

body’s fundamental strengths, as well as areas for possible reform. From James 

Madison in 1787 to Lyndon Johnson biographer Robert Caro in 2002, sharp-eyed analysts have left memorable accounts that can help modern Senators better understand the Senate in its historical context. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Allen 

Drury’s 1943 comment about the Senate of his day—‘‘There is a vast area of casual 

ignorance concerning this lively and appealing body’’—retains a ring of truth for 

modern times. The ‘‘Idea of the Senate’’ project, completed during this year, identifies 30 major statements by knowledgeable observers. Each of the brief chapters includes an extended quotation and an essay that places the quotation in historical 

context. This work will be published during 2007. 

Rules of the United States Senate, Since 1789 

In 1980, Senate Parliamentarian Emeritus Floyd M. Riddick, at the direction of 

the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, prepared a publication containing the eight codes of rules that the Senate adopted between 1789 and 1979. 

In the 1990s, the Senate Historical Office, in consultation with Dr. Riddick, developed a project to incorporate an important feature not contained in the 1980 publication. Beyond simply listing the eight codes of rules, our goal is to show how—and 

why—the Senate’s current rules have evolved from earlier versions. This work, to 

be completed during 2007, will contain eight narrative chapters outlining key debates and reasons for significant changes. Appendices will include the original text 

of all standing rules and all changes adopted between each codification. 

Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1774–2007 

Since 1989, the assistant historian has added many new biographical sketches, 

expanded bibliography entries, and revised and updated most of the online database’s nearly 2,000 Senate and vice-presidential entries. An updated print edition, 

covering the years 1774–2005, was published early in 2006. The assistant historian 

continues to oversee all editing and updating of existing information for the online 

version of the Biographical Directory (http://bioguide.congress.gov) to allow for expanded search capabilities, maintain accuracy, and incorporate new information and 

scholarship. 

Oral History Program 

The Historical Office conducts a series of oral history interviews, which provide 

personal recollections of various Senate careers. This year, roundtable interviews 

were conducted with veteran Capitol telephone operators, Joan Sartori, Ellen Kramer, Martha Fletcher, and Barbara Loughery. Interviews were also completed with 

John D. Lane, who served in the early 1950s as administrative assistant to Senator 

Brien McMahon (D-CT). Several other interviews with Senate staff are in progress. 

The complete transcripts of 22 interviews have also been posted on the Senate’s 

Web site. 

Member Services 

Members’ Records Management and Disposition Assistance 

The Senate archivist assisted Members’ offices with planning for the preservation 

of their permanently valuable records, emphasizing the importance of managing 

electronic records and transferring valuable records to a home-state repository. In 

addition, the office provided special assistance to offices closing at the end of the 

109th Congress. This included identifying appropriate repositories for those members who had not already selected one, working with staff to ensure appropriate selection and preservation of historical documentation including electronic records, 

and advising members on access restrictions. 

The archivist revised and published the Records Management Handbook for 

United States Senators and Their Archival Repositories and the Checklist for Closing a Senator’s Office. The archivist continued to work with staff from all repositories receiving senatorial collections to ensure adequacy of documentation and the 

transfer of appropriate records with adequate finding aids. The archivist provided 

briefing materials to transition offices and met with staff. The archivist conducted 

a seminar on records management for Senate offices and participated in the Senate 

Services Fair sponsored by the Office of Education and Training. The archivist organized a day-long meeting in conjunction with the Society of American Archivists’ annual meeting for Congressional Papers Roundtable members that covered selection, 

arrangement, and description of congressional papers; new web-based sources for 
172 

political historical research; and contemporary Senate electronic record-keeping systems and related preservation issues. 

Committee Records Management and Disposition Assistance 

The Senate archivist provided each committee with staff briefings, record surveys, 

guidance on preservation of information in electronic systems, and instructions for 

the transfer of permanently valuable records to the National Archives’ Center for 

Legislative Archives. The office oversaw the transfer to the Archives of 350 accessions of Senate records. The archivist revised and published the U.S. Senate 

Records: Guidelines for Committee Staff. The archivist and assistant archivist responded to approximately 400 requests for loans of records back to committees. The 

archival assistant continued to provide processing aid to committees and administrative offices in need of basic help with noncurrent files. The archival assistant produced committee archiving reports in Access database format covering records’ 

transfers for the past Congress. The archivist will use these reports in 2007 to provide committees with suggestions to promote timely transfers. 

Photographic Collections 

The photo historian supported publication of 200 Notable Days: Senate Stories, 

1787–2002 by obtaining uniquely engaging illustrations from her collections and 

from photo archives throughout the nation. The office continued to provide timely 

photographic reference service, while cataloging, digitizing, rehousing, and expanding the office’s 40,000-item image collection. The photo historian also maintained 

the Office’s COOP and vital electronic records. As a contribution to the office’s educational outreach efforts, the photo historian added to the online photographic exhibits for the Senate Web site a feature entitled The Senate Through the Ages. 

Educational Outreach 

‘‘Senate Historical Minutes’’ 

The Senate historian continued a 10-year series of ‘‘Senate Historical Minutes,’’ 

begun in 1997 at the request of the Senate Democratic Leader. In 2006, the historian prepared and delivered a ‘‘Senate Historical Minute’’ at 17 Senate Democratic 

Conference weekly meetings. These 400-word Minutes were designed to enlighten 

members about significant events and personalities associated with the Senate’s institutional development. More than 200 Minutes are available as a feature on the 

Senate Web site. An illustrated compilation was recently published as 200 Notable 

Days: Senate Stories, 1787–2002. 

Public Inquiries 

Much of the Historical Office’s correspondence with the general public takes place 

through the Senate’s Web site, which has become an indispensable source for information about the institution. Historical Office staff maintain and frequently update 

the Web site with timely reference and historical information. In 2006, the office responded to an estimated 1,500 inquiries from the general public, the press, students, 

family genealogists, congressional staffers, and academics, through the public e-mail 

address provided on the Senate Web site. The diverse nature of their questions reflects varying levels of interest in Senate operations, institutional history, and 

former members. In coordination with the Senate Office of Education and Training, 

Historical Office staff provided seminars on the general history of the Senate, Senate committees, women Senators, Senate floor leadership, and the U.S. Constitution. 

Office staff also participated in seminars and briefings for specially scheduled 

groups. 

C–SPAN Documentary on the Capitol 

Over the past two years, the Historical Office, in conjunction with the Office of 

the Curator, assisted C–SPAN with source material and on-camera interviews for 

its nine-hour television documentary ‘‘The Capitol’’. C–SPAN launched this series in 

late May and repeated it throughout the year. 

Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress 

This 11-member permanent committee, established in 1990 by Public Law 101– 

509, meets twice a year to advise the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the 

Archivist of the United States on the management and preservation of the records 

of Congress. Its Senate-related membership includes appointees of the majority and 

minority leaders; the Secretary of the Senate, who served as committee vice chair 

during the 109th Congress; and the Senate historian. The Historical office provided 

support services for the Committee’s June and December meetings. 
173 

Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Content Committee 

Staff historians completed their assignments in drafting text for displays in the 

17,000-square-foot exhibition gallery of the CVC. During 2006, the office continued 

to assist Donna Lawrence Productions and Cortina Productions with background 

material for visitor orientation films and interactive visual displays. 

7. HUMAN RESOURCES

The Office of Human Resources was established in June 1995 as a result of the 

Congressional Accountability Act. The office focuses on developing and implementing human resources policies, procedures, and programs for the Office of the 

Secretary of the Senate that not only fulfill the legal requirements of the workplace 

but which complement the organization’s strategic goals and values. 

This includes recruiting and staffing; providing guidance and advice to managers 

and staff; training; performance management; job analysis; compensation planning, 

design, and administration; leave administration; records management; maintaining 

the employee handbooks and manuals; internal grievance procedures; employee relations and services; and organizational planning and development. 

The Human Resources office administers the following programs for the Secretary’s employees: the Public Transportation Subsidy program, Student Loan Repayment Program, parking allocations, and the Summer Intern Program that offers 

college students the opportunity to gain valuable skills and experience in a variety 

of Senate support offices. 

Recruitment and Retention of Staff 

Human Resources has the ongoing task of advertising new vacancies or positions, 

screening applicants, interviewing candidates and assisting with all phases of the 

hiring process. Human Resources is now coordinating with the SAA Human Resources Department to post all SAA and Secretary vacancies on the Senate intranet 

so that the larger Senate community may access the posting from their own offices. 

Additionally, an ‘‘Employment’’ link on Webster will be fully activated in the next 

few months, highlighting SAA, Secretary and Employment Bulletin vacancies and 

application processes. 

Outreach 

Comprehensive resource manuals for the Senate’s Elder Care Fair have been created and are being distributed throughout the Senate and have been requested by 

specific offices, committees, and/or departments. It was originally intended that the 

Elder Care Fair would be beneficial to Senate staff every two years, starting with 

the first one in 2005. Since the groundwork has been laid, the fair can be held more 

frequently, and hosting the event will rotate among the human resource offices of 

the Secretary, the SAA, the AOC, and the House. The next fair will be held later 

this year. 

Training 

In conjunction with the SCCE, Human Resources continues to develop and provide training for department heads and staff. Training topics include Sexual Harassment, Interviewing Skills, Conducting Background Checks, and Providing Feedback 

to Employees and Goal Setting. 

Interns and Fellows 

Human Resources manages the Secretary’s internship program and the coordination of the Heinz Fellowship program. From advertising, conducting needs analyses, 

communicating, screening, placing and following up with all interns, HR keeps a 

close connection with these program participants in an effort to make the internship 

most beneficial to them and the organization. 

Combined Federal Campaign 

Human Resources has taken an active role in the Combined Federal Campaign 

(CFC) for the Senate community at-large. The office serves as co-director of the program for the Senate, participating in kick off meetings, identifying key workers in 

each office, and disseminating and collecting necessary information and paperwork. 

8. INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides technical hardware 

and software support for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with the application and network development 

groups within the SAA, GPO, and outside vendors on technical issues and joint 

projects. The department provides computer-related support for all local area net-
174 

work (LAN) servers within the Office of the Secretary. Information Systems staff 

provide direct application support for all software installed on workstations, initiate 

and guide new technologies, and implement next generation hardware and software 

solutions. 

Mission Evaluation 

The primary mission of the Information Systems Department is to continue to 

provide the highest level of customer satisfaction and computer support for all departments within the Secretary’s office. Emphasis is placed on the creation and 

transfer of electronic legislative files to outside departments and agencies, meeting 

Disbursing Office financial responsibilities to the member offices, and office mandated and statutory obligations. 

Staffing and Functionality 

Information Systems staff functionality was expanded by moving the IT structure 

from a local LAN support structure to an enterprise IT support process. Improved 

diagnostic practices were adopted to expand support across all departments. Several 

departments, namely Disbursing, Chief Counsel for Employment, Office of Public 

Records, Page School, Senate Security, Stationery and Gift Shop previously employed dedicated information technology (IT) staff resident within the offices. Information Systems personnel continue to provide multi-tiered escalated hardware and 

software support for these offices. 

For information security reasons, departments have implemented isolated computer systems, unique applications, and isolated local area networks. The Secretary 

of the Senate network is a closed local area network to all offices within the Senate. 

Information Systems staff continue to provide a common level of hardware and software integration for these networks, and for the shared resources of interdepartmental networking. Information System staff actively participate in all new project 

design and implementation within the Secretary of the Senate operations. 

Fiscal Year 2006 Summary of Improvements to the Secretary’s Local Area Networks 

Adopted improved network monitoring standards and implemented active e-mail 

spam controls for the Secretary of the Senate staff. 

Established an automated server to schedule and deploy software updates on all 

staff workstations during non-business hours of operation. 

Replaced 237 staff workstations (95 percent) and upgraded software applications 

across all departments. 

Installed Video Teleconferencing (VTC) hardware and incorporated VTC as an alternative COOP communications tool. 

Upgraded and replaced all handheld mobile devices (Blackberry) for essential 

staff. 

Provided network support for the Webster Hall and Alternate Chamber COOP Exercise. 

Finalized implementation of new point of sale and accounting system for the Stationery Room. 

Completed Senate Wireless network access verification testing for staff access in 

Hart, Russell, and Dirksen locations. 

Completed office staff occupancy, network access, and provided environmental 

tools at the SSF. 

Active Directory and Message Infrastructure Project (ADMA) 

All SecurID and Passfaces users have remote Web portal to Senate Web services. 

Access to Web-based services is available from all public and private internet locations 

Staff members can now retrieve Web mail from any home or state office 

workstation. 

Leveraged technologies included continuation of Groove Collaboration Project, and 

integrated Voice Over IP (VoIP) solution during COOP events. 

Clearly, the implementation of ADMA for the Secretary involved numerous resources on the part of both the SAA and the Secretary’s offices. The importance of 

this single project provides the ‘‘base’’ for all future IT related projects in the coming 

years. 

Legislative Operation Upgrades 

Upgraded Daily Digest LIS software application. 

Installed and updated a third off-site legislative COOP laptop kit. 
175 

9. INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES

The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its 25th year of operation as a department of the Secretary of the Senate. IPS is responsible for administrative, financial, and protocol functions for all interparliamentary conferences 

in which the Senate participates by statute, for interparliamentary conferences in 

which the Senate participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations authorized by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also provides appropriate 

assistance as requested by other Senate delegations. 

The statutory interparliamentary conferences include the following: NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group, CanadaUnited States Interparliamentary Group, British-American Interparliamentary 

Group, United States-Russia Interparliamentary Group, and United States-China 

Interparliamentary Group. 

In May, the 46th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group 

was held in South Carolina. Arrangements for this successful event were handled 

by the IPS staff. 

All foreign travel authorized by the Majority and Minority Leaders is arranged 

by the IPS staff. In addition to delegation trips, IPS provided assistance to individual Senators and staff traveling overseas. Senators and staff authorized by committees for foreign travel call upon this office for assistance with passports, visas, 

travel arrangements, and reporting requirements. 

IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial reports for foreign 

travel from all committees in the Senate. In addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tem, IPS 

staff assist staff members of Senators and committees in completing the required 

reports. 

Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the Department of 

State and foreign embassy officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received 

in this office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups by the IPS 

staff. The staff continues to work closely with other offices of the Secretary of the 

Senate and the SAA in arranging programs for foreign visitors. In addition, IPS is 

frequently consulted by individual Senators’ offices on a broad range of protocol 

questions. Occasional questions come from state officials or the general public regarding Congressional protocol. 

On behalf of the Majority and Minority Leaders, the staff arranges receptions in 

the Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments, and 

parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on behalf of foreign 

visitors under authority of Public Law 100–71 are maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services. 

Planning is underway for the 46th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and the British American Parliamentary Group meetings 

which will be held in the United States in 2007. Advance work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group to be 

held in the United States in 2008. Preparations are also underway for the spring 

and fall sessions of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. 

10. LIBRARY

The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and general information 

services to the United States Senate. The library’s collection encompasses legislative 

documents that date from the Continental Congress in 1774; current and historic 

executive and judicial branch materials; an extensive book collection on American 

politics, history, and biography; and a wide array of online systems. The library also 

authors content for three Web sites—LIS.gov, Senate.gov, and Webster. 

Notable Achievements 

Information inquiries increased 90 percent. 

LIS training provided to 343 Senate staff. 

Acquired digital databases containing 313,730 congressional documents. 

Published first bibliography on Senate.gov using XML. 

Committee hearing (from 1889) cataloging project completed. 

Treaty and executive report (from 1857) cataloging project completed. 

Shelved 26,000 volumes at the Senate Support Facility. 

Acquired catalog and Web servers to support library system upgrade. 

Environmental control systems installed to safeguard document collections. 
176 

Information Services 

The foundations of Senate Library services are authoritative legislative record 

keeping, prompt resolution of traditional requests, and customized research instruction. The library is significantly expanding the use of Web technology to meet the 

Senate’s ever-increasing demand for current, accurate, and relevant information. 

The Library’s efforts include establishing workflow and publication policies, and 

leading the Senate.gov Content Team toward improving site structure and meta 

data standards. The library’s commitment to improve services resulted in a 90 percent inquiry increase, the third consecutive year of double-digit increases. 

INFORMATION SERVICES INQUIRIES 

Year Traditional Web Total 

Increase 

from Prior 

Year (percent) 

2006 ...................................................................................................... 31,032 1,596,772 1,627,804 90 

2005 ...................................................................................................... 33,080 823,076 856,156 35 

2004 ...................................................................................................... 33,750 602,236 635,986 61 

2003 ...................................................................................................... 46,234 348,198 394,432 ( 1 ) 

1 Baseline. 

Legislative Record Keeping 

The library guarantees daily accuracy of more than 100 Senate business-related 

lists on three Web sites—Senate.gov, LIS.gov, and Webster. Legislative records published by the Library are in high demand because of their usability and quick access. Almost 1.6 million visitors to Library-produced Web resources underscore the 

need for these materials. The three most popular legislative publications—Hot Bills 

List, Appropriations Legislation, and Action on Cloture—garnered 456,151 Web visitors in 2006. 

HOT BILLS, APPROPRIATIONS, AND CLOTURE WEB INQUIRIES 

Publication Senate.gov LIS Webster Total 

Hot Bills (Active Legislation) ................................................................ 372,857 17,096 8,796 398,749 

Appropriations Legislation (fiscal year 1987-present) ........................ 43,795 6,293 3,545 53,633 

Cloture Motion Activity (1985-present) ................................................ 1,299 1,256 1,214 3,769 

Total Web Inquiries ...................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 456,151 

Since accepting responsibility to author Senate.gov content in 2002, library staff 

have dedicated themselves to mastering Web technology best practices. Efforts have 

resulted in the conversion of many existing print and Web publications into XML 

format. This versatile format is a universal standard for efficiently storing and retrieving data. The great advantage of XML is that both print and Web products can 

be easily generated from a single data source. 

Senator Biography Database 

Several offices under the Secretary of the Senate share publishing responsibility 

for up-to-the-day information on Senate.gov. When new Senate records are set, such 

as for the longest-serving Senator or when a Senator has cast more than 10,000 

votes, those accomplishments are immediately published on the site. To support 

these requirements, the library conducted a review of software products to construct 

a biographical database. 

As part of this effort, the library has created a prototype database designed to 

eliminate redundant data entry, improve workflow, and reduce the potential for 

error. Key elements about the 1,895 individuals who have served as Senators since 

1789—member name, state, party, and dates of service, for example—can be stored 

and managed in the database. These standardized elements are retrievable as needed. 

Committee Hearings 

The library’s retrospective Senate hearing project was completed on December 

28—an achievement that took 13 years of effort. This significant accomplishment 

provides Senate staff with bibliographic access to the library’s collection of 36,300 
177 

hearings dating from 1889. The library collection is regarded as the most complete 

in existence, surpassing those of the Library of Congress and National Archives. 

A second hearing project involves creating catalog records for Senate hearings announced in the Congressional Record Daily Digest. This project bridges the threeto six-month period between the hearing announcement and the official publication 

of the hearing. For the first time, Senate staff have a reliable source—the library 

catalog—to locate hearing information for all hearings, including unpublished hearings. Since the project began in May 2005, 1,098 unpublished hearing records have 

been created. 

Floor Schedule 

The library is responsible for posting the Floor Schedule on Senate.gov after each 

Senate meeting adjourns. The schedule provides convene and adjourn times, program highlights, and links to roll call votes and daily calendars. Floor Schedule production was improved this year by establishing an XML template that standardizes 

the format. 

Digital Congressional Document Collection 

The library acquired two congressional document databases and the full-text 

searchable collections provide Senate-wide access to 313,730 reports and documents. 

The databases contain the U.S. Congressional Serial Set, Senate Journal, House 

Journal, Senate Executive Journal, and American State Papers. An added benefit 

of these databases is that customized research collections can be created by Senate 

staff from their desktop. For example, one customized collection groups early editions of the Secretary of the Senate Report (1823–1903). 

DIGITAL COLLECTION USAGE 

Title (coverage) Searches 

American State Papers (1789–1838) .......................................................................................................................... 588 

Congressional Research Service Reports (1916-present) ........................................................................................... 400 

Senate and House Committee Prints (1830-present) ................................................................................................. 400 

U.S. Congressional Serial Set (1817–1906) ................................................................................................................ 1,729 

Total Digital Collection Searches ........................................................................................................................ 3,117 

Treaty Documents and Executive Reports 

More than 1,565 treaties and 1,016 executive reports, from 1857 to the present, 

were cataloged during a 5-year project. This project provides bibliographic access to 

the entire Senate executive document collection through the library’s catalog. The 

international scholarly community will also benefit from these unique bibliographic 

records because in many instances the only known copies are in the Senate collection. 

Traditional Information Requests 

Traditional requests—by telephone, e-mail, or in-person—are fewer than Webbased inquiries; however they dominate daily library activity. Often working under 

strict deadlines, the eight-person team personally responds to a monthly average of 

2,586 staff inquiries. Each request is handled in a timely, confidential, and nonpartisan manner. Research requests vary widely, including legislative, legal, economic, and historical topics. The knowledge gained from this frontline experience 

provides the basis from which the librarians create Web products. 

INFORMATION SERVICE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 

Category Total 

Document Deliveries ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,290 

Circulation: 

Item Loans .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,941 

New Accounts ...................................................................................................................................................... 333 

Total Accounts ................................................................................................................................................ 2,745 

Microform Center: 

Titles Used .......................................................................................................................................................... 245 

Pages Printed ...................................................................................................................................................... 4,479 
178 

INFORMATION SERVICE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Category Total 

Photocopies .................................................................................................................................................................. 101,297 

Customized Research Instruction and Professional Outreach 

The library conducted 46 LIS Savvy classes for 343 staff. This important responsibility utilizes the library’s expertise in legislative procedure and database research. 

During this second year of the library’s LIS training program, additional classes for 

advanced search techniques are in development. The library is also collaborating 

with the Office of Education and Training to design a self-paced, online LIS course. 

During 2006, 175 staff attended Services of the Senate Library seminars, the Senate Services Fair, Senate Page School tours, state staff orientations, and the annual 

National Library Week reception and book talk. Visitors from graduate schools, professional organizations, and federal libraries totaled 188. 

Technical Services 

Acquisitions 

As a participant in GPO’s Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), the library receives selected categories of legislative, executive, and judicial branch publications. The library received 10,655 government publications in 2006, 9,907 of those 

through the FDLP. In response to the trend of issuing government documents in 

electronic format, 20,400 links were added to the library catalog. The links provide 

Senate staff desktop access to the full-text of each document. 

ACQUISITIONS 

Category Total 

Congressional Documents ............................................................................................................................................ 7,322 

Executive Branch Publications ..................................................................................................................................... 3,333 

Books ............................................................................................................................................................................ 889 

Total Acquisitions ................................................................................................................................................ 11,544 

A major project is the ongoing title-by-title evaluation of executive branch publications. During the project’s sixth year, 1,219 items were withdrawn from the collection, 642 of which were donated to requesting federal libraries. The project’s final 

phase will improve organization and access by integrating the retained documents 

into the book collection. Toward this end, 602 documents were reclassified and 

merged into the larger primary collection. 

The library significantly expanded its microform periodical coverage through the 

acquisition of surplus materials from Washington-area libraries. New titles include: 

Los Angeles Times, 1978–2005; New England Journal of Medicine, 1984–1998; The 

New York Times, 1926–1961; The Progressive, 1984–2004; and USA Today, 1993– 

2005. 

Catalog 

The library’s productive cataloging staff draws on years of experience to produce 

and maintain a catalog of more than 177,940 bibliographic items. During 2006, 

13,303 items were added to the catalog, including 8,132 new titles—a 57 percent increase over 2005—and 6,154 items were withdrawn. A total of 32,592 maintenance 

transactions contributed to the catalog’s content, currency, and record integrity. 

Senate staff searched the library catalog on 4,742 occasions (∂21 percent), viewing 6,514 catalog pages (∂12 percent). The catalog is updated nightly to ensure that 

Senate staff will retrieve accurate and current information on library holdings. Visual appeal and utility were enhanced with the addition of 280 book jacket images 

for new titles. 

A related, ongoing project involves cataloging the Senate Historical Office’s 3,000- 

volume book collection. Records for 820 titles were added to the library catalog, 

bringing the total number of Historical Office titles to 1,426. They will be able to 

efficiently identify and locate volumes in their collection through the library catalog. 

Name Authorities Cooperative Program (NACO) 

NACO, an international cataloging authority located at the Library of Congress, 

manages personal name and subject control for the library community. As one of 

457 participants, the library contributed 616 personal names and congressional 
179 

terms. That exceptional number underscores the very special nature of the Senate’s 

collections and skills of the library’s catalogers. 

Library System Servers 

The library acquired three servers that will provide a platform for the fiscal year 

2007 catalog upgrade. New capabilities will shorten data transfer time and increase 

catalog availability, enhance record processing, and provide for dynamic delivery of 

catalog content to the Web. 

Collection Maintenance 

Senate Support Facility 

The library’s off-site collection includes legislative publications dating from the 

early 1800s. These 26,000 volumes are an archive of the Senate’s primary source 

documents. In early 2006 the collection was transferred to the new SSF; organization and shelving were completed by August. 

Environmental Controls 

Air handling and water detection systems were installed in the Russell Building 

book stacks. These environmental controls improve storage conditions for the Senate’s historic collections. With the new equipment, the site meets strict archival 

standards for both temperature and humidity levels. Newly installed detection devices will alert staff to any water-related issues. 

Sensors to remotely monitor environmental conditions were installed in the library’s book stacks within the SSF. If relative humidity and temperature levels exceed preset thresholds, staff will receive an e-mail alert. These improvements mark 

the first time in the library’s history that all collections are housed in controlled environments. 

Preservation and Binding 

A collection survey to examine the physical condition of the 38,815-volume book 

collection was completed in August 2006. The survey concluded that the collection 

is in excellent condition. However, 580 volumes (1.5 percent) will require minor repair and 32 volumes will be evaluated for major repair or replacement. 

Library collections include every printed legislative document since the First Congress. In order to ensure that this collection remains comprehensive, materials are 

prepared for binding at GPO. During the year, 608 volumes containing hearings, 

committee prints, bills and resolutions, Congressional Records, and other materials 

were bound. 

Administrative 

Budget 

Budget savings in 2006 totaled $1,575; and, after a decade of budget monitoring, savings total $75,813.86. This continual review of purchases eliminates materials 

not meeting the Senate’s current information needs. This oversight is also critical 

in offsetting cost increases for core materials and for acquiring new materials. The 

goal is to provide the highest level using the latest technologies and best resources 

in the most cost-effective manner. 

Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) 

Several Library initiatives this year will further enable the Office of the Secretary 

to provide information services to the Senate from off-site. Projects include housing 

core documents at the SSF and training staff to remotely access the Senate network 

from a Senate-issued laptop. Additionally, the library established a Digital Congressional Research Collection containing fully searchable congressional documents dating from the First Congress. These databases can be remotely accessed, and support 

immediate digital delivery of information. 

Unum, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate 

Unum, the Secretary’s quarterly newsletter has been produced by Senate Library 

staff since October 1997. It serves as an historical record of accomplishments, 

events, and personnel in the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate. The newsletter 

is distributed throughout the Senate, and to former staff and Senators. 

The four 2006 issues highlighted several significant events including three major 

publications issued through Secretary’s office, 200 Notable Days: Senate Stories, 

1787–2002, United States Senate Graphic Arts Catalog, and Biographical Directory 

of the United States Senate, 1789–2005. 

Major Library Goals for 2007 

Redesign the library’s Webster site. 
180 

Create a Web-based Senate index for Senate.gov and the library’s Webster site. 

Acquire software for a senator’s biographical database. 

Develop online LIS training resources for Senate staff. 

Upgrade the integrated library system. 

Install new OCLC cataloging software. 

Survey U.S. Congressional Serial Set volumes in the Senate Support Facility. 

Survey book, House hearing, and microform collections in the Russell Building. 
181 

SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006—ACQUISITIONS 

Books Government Documents Congressional Publications 

Total 

Ordered Received Paper Fiche Hearings Prints Bylaw Reports/ Docs 

January ............................................................................................................................................... 42 87 142 24 293 18 46 375 985 February ............................................................................................................................................. 25 27 165 112 241 25 63 113 746 March ................................................................................................................................................. 20 65 269 386 307 21 134 226 1,408 

1st Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 87 179 576 522 841 64 243 714 3,139 

April .................................................................................................................................................... 21 55 208 270 311 17 62 239 1,162 May ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 86 184 ................ 310 20 86 334 1,020 June .................................................................................................................................................... 13 87 161 43 220 23 56 72 662 

2nd Quarter .......................................................................................................................... 59 228 553 313 841 60 204 645 2,844 

July ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 119 174 42 276 19 52 173 855 August ................................................................................................................................................ 27 75 67 171 272 14 54 196 849 September .......................................................................................................................................... 41 70 61 ................ 273 15 68 212 699 

3rd Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 88 264 302 213 821 48 174 581 2,403 

October ............................................................................................................................................... 38 92 300 13 352 14 58 705 1,534 November ........................................................................................................................................... 60 52 214 41 262 16 36 195 816 December ........................................................................................................................................... 15 74 117 169 233 19 33 163 808 

4th Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 113 218 631 223 847 49 127 1,063 3,158 2006 Total ............................................................................................................................ 347 889 2,062 1,271 3,350 221 748 3,003 11,544 2005 Total ............................................................................................................................ 346 880 2,337 1,251 2,926 252 884 3,458 11,988 

Percent Change .................................................................................................................................. 0.29 1.02 –11.77 1.60 14.49 –12.30 –15.38 –13.16 –3.70 
182 

SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006—CATALOGING 

S. Hearing 

Numbers 

Added to 

LIS 

Bibliographic Records Cataloged 

Total 

Records 

Cataloged Books 

Government Documents 

Congressional Publications 

Paper Fiche Electronic 

Hearings Prints 

Docs./ 

Pubs./Reports 

January ............................................................................................................................................... 20 70 10 1 16 349 10 117 573 February ............................................................................................................................................. 26 50 1 2 9 312 5 100 479 March ................................................................................................................................................. 32 249 4 15 49 561 14 284 1,176 

1st Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 78 369 15 18 74 1,222 29 501 2,228 

April .................................................................................................................................................... 30 38 11 4 21 418 1 83 576 May ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 246 5 51 5 461 36 5 809 June .................................................................................................................................................... 7 116 3 1 ................ 391 7 46 564 

2nd Quarter .......................................................................................................................... 56 400 19 56 26 1,270 44 134 1,949 

July ..................................................................................................................................................... 45 168 4 ................ 12 618 5 11 818 August ................................................................................................................................................ 53 116 3 1 11 333 5 ................ 469 September .......................................................................................................................................... 8 225 14 6 24 558 7 21 855 

3rd Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 106 509 21 7 47 1,509 17 32 2,142 

October ............................................................................................................................................... 33 59 ................ ................ ................ 485 4 18 566 November ........................................................................................................................................... 21 92 10 ................ 11 578 1 5 697 December ........................................................................................................................................... 24 70 5 15 13 442 3 2 550 

4th Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 78 221 15 15 24 1,505 8 25 1,813 2006 Total ............................................................................................................................ 318 1,499 70 96 171 5,506 98 692 8,132 2005 Total ............................................................................................................................ 1,088 500 85 57 131 3,379 39 988 5,179 

Percent Change .................................................................................................................................. –70.77 199.80 –17.65 68.42 30.53 62.95 151.28 –29.96 57.02 
183 

SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006—DOCUMENT DELIVERY 

Volumes 

Loaned 

Materials 

Delivered 

Facsimiles 

Micrographics 

Center 

Pages 

Printed 

Photocopiers 

Pages 

Printed 

January ............................................................................................... 240 354 100 184 7,079 

February ............................................................................................. 223 312 79 224 13,615 

March ................................................................................................. 195 409 109 67 9,304 

1st Quarter ........................................................................... 658 1,075 288 475 29,998 

April ................................................................................................... 247 256 70 471 11,194 

May .................................................................................................... 279 319 71 436 12,232 

June .................................................................................................... 313 340 100 778 12,804 

2nd Quarter .......................................................................... 839 915 241 1,685 36,230 

July ..................................................................................................... 249 211 69 1,312 6,315

August ................................................................................................ 185 203 65 162 6,488 

September .......................................................................................... 398 283 71 190 9,178 

3rd Quarter ........................................................................... 832 697 205 1,664 21,981 

October ............................................................................................... 235 203 76 320 6,213 

November ........................................................................................... 260 208 34 268 3,014 

December ........................................................................................... 117 192 34 67 3,861 

4th Quarter ........................................................................... 612 603 144 655 13,088 

2006 Total ............................................................................ 2,941 3,290 878 4,479 101,297 

2005 Total ............................................................................ 2,752 4,015 1,001 4,406 113,335 

Percent Change ................................................................................. 6.87 –18.06 –12.29 1.66 –10.62 

11. SENATE PAGE SCHOOL

The United States Senate Page School exists to provide a smooth transition from 

and to the students’ home schools, providing those students with as sound a program, both academically and experientially, as possible during their stay in the nation’s capital, within the limits of the constraints imposed by the work situation. 

Summary of Accomplishments 

Continue to work toward accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools. The process will be ongoing until December 31, 2008. 

Conducted closing ceremonies for two page classes on June 9, 2006, and January 

26, 2007, the last day of school for each semester. 

Completed orientation and course scheduling for the Spring 2006 and Fall 2006 

pages. Needs of incoming students determined the semester schedules. 

Provided extended educational experiences including twenty-three field trips, six 

guest speakers, writing and speaking contests, musical instruments and vocal opportunities, and foreign language study with the aid of tutors of five languages. 

Summer pages participated in eight field trips to educational sites and listened to 

two guest speakers as an extension of the page experience. National tests were administered for qualification in scholarship programs. 

Collected items for gift packages and then assembled and shipped to military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the community service project embraced 

by pages and staff since 2002. Pages included letters of support to the troops. Several recipients of gift packages wrote letters to Pages expressing appreciation. 

Purchased updated materials and equipment. These included eighteen new 

workstations for students and staff. Math, science, and U.S. history texts were purchased as well as academic support software. The science lab was modified, updated, 

and safety compliant storage units for chemicals were purchased. 

Reviewed and updated the evacuation plan and COOP. Pages and staff continue 

to practice evacuating to primary and secondary sites. 

Participated in escape hood training (pages and staff). Staff was recertified in 

CPR/AED procedures. 
184 

Trained tutors and substitute teachers in evacuation procedures. 

Summary of Plans 

Our goals include: 

—Individualized small group instruction and tutoring by teachers on an as-needed 

basis will continue to be offered. 

—Foreign language tutors will provide instruction in French, Spanish, Latin, Japanese, Chinese, and Russian. 

—The focus of field trips will be sites of historic, political, and scientific importance which complement the curriculum. 

—Staff development options include attendance at seminars conducted by Education and Training and subject matter and/or educational issue conferences 

conducted by national organizations. 

—The community service project will continue. 

—Preparation for the accreditation visit will be made and all necessary reports 

completed. 

12. PRINTING AND DOCUMENT SERVICES

The Office of Printing and Document Services (OPDS) serves as the liaison to 

GPO for the Senate’s official printing, ensuring that all Senate printing is in compliance with Title 44, U.S. Code as it relates to Senate documents, hearings, committee 

prints and other official publications. The office assists the Senate by coordinating, 

scheduling, delivering and preparing Senate legislation, hearings, documents, committee prints and miscellaneous publications for printing, and provides printed copies of all legislation and public laws to the Senate and the public. In addition, the 

office assigns publication numbers to all hearings, committee prints, documents and 

other publications; orders all blank paper, envelopes and letterhead for the Senate; 

and prepares page counts of all Senate hearings in order to compensate commercial 

reporting companies for the preparation of hearings. 

Printing Services 

During fiscal year 2006, the OPDS prepared 4,320 requisitions authorizing GPO 

to print and bind the Senate’s work, exclusive of legislation and the Congressional 

Record. Since the requisitioning done by the OPDS is central to the Senate’s printing, the office is uniquely suited to perform invoice and bid reviewing responsibilities for Senate printing. As a result of this office’s cost accounting duties, OPDS 

is able to review and assure accurate GPO invoicing as well as play an active role 

in helping to provide the best possible bidding scenario for Senate publications. 

In addition to processing requisitions, the Printing Services Section coordinates 

proof handling, job scheduling and tracking for stationery products, Senate hearings, Senate publications and other miscellaneous printed products, as well as monitoring blank paper and stationery quotas for each Senate office and committee. The 

OPDS also coordinates a number of publications for other Senate offices such as the 

Curator, Historian, Disbursing Office, Legislative Clerk, Senate Library as well as 

the U.S. Botanic Garden, USCP and the AOC. These tasks include providing guidance for design, paper selection, print specifications, monitoring print quality and 

distribution. Last year’s major printing projects included the Report of the Secretary 

of the Senate; and numerous publications prepared by the Senate Historian’s office 

including 200 Notable Days in Senate History, and the New Member Guide to Traditions of the U.S. Senate. Current major projects for the office include A Botanic 

Garden for the Nation, the Annual Report of the Architect of the Capitol, and A History of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. 

Hearing Billing Verification 

Senate committees often use outside reporting companies to transcribe their hearings, both in-house and in the field. The OPDS processes billing verifications for 

these transcription services ensuring that costs billed to the Senate are accurate. 

The OPDS utilizes a program developed in conjunction with the SAA Computer Division that provides more billing accuracy and greater information gathering capacity; and adheres to the guidelines established by the Senate Committee on Rules 

and Administration for commercial reporting companies to bill the Senate for transcription services. During 2006, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies 

and corresponding Senate committees a total of 934 billing verifications of Senate 

hearings and business meetings. Over 66,000 transcribed pages were processed at 

a total billing cost of over $433,000. 

The office continued processing all file transfers between committees and reporting companies electronically, ensuring efficiency and accuracy. Department staff 
185 

continues training to apply today’s expanding digital technology to improve performance and services. 

HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND BILLING VERIFICATIONS 

2004 2005 2006 Percent change 

Billing Verifications .................................................... 787 949 934 ¥01 .6 

Average per Committee .............................................. 41.4 49.9 49.2 ¥01 .6 

Total Transcribed Pages ............................................. 56,262 66,597 66,158 ¥0 .007 

Average Pages/Committee .......................................... 2,961 3,505 3,482 ¥0 .007 

Transcribed Pages Cost .............................................. $366,904 $426,815 $433,742 ∂1 .016 

Average Cost/Committee ............................................ $19,311 $22,463 $22,829 ∂1 .016 

Additionally, the Service Center within the OPDS is staffed by experienced GPO 

detailees that provide Senate committees and the Secretary of the Senate’s Office 

with complete publishing services for hearings, committee prints, and the preparation of the Congressional Record. These services include keyboarding, proofreading, 

scanning, and composition. The Service Center provides the best management of 

funds available through the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation because committees have been able to decrease, or eliminate, additional overtime costs 

associated with the preparation of hearings. 

Document Services 

The Document Services Section coordinates requests for printed legislation and 

miscellaneous publications with other departments within the Secretary’s Office, 

Senate committees, and GPO. This section ensures that the most current version 

of all material is available, and that sufficient quantities are available to meet projected demands. The Congressional Record, a printed record of Senate and House 

floor proceedings, Extension of Remarks, Daily Digest and miscellaneous pages, is 

one of the many printed documents provided by the office on a daily basis. In addition to the Congressional Record, the office processed and distributed 14,902 distinct 

legislative items during the 109th Congress, including Senate and House bills, resolutions, committee and conference reports, executive documents, and public laws. 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATISTICS 

2004 2005 2006 

Total Pages Printed ................................................................................... 26,885 34,787 24,881 

For the Senate .................................................................................. 12,642 16,393 12,362 

For the House .................................................................................... 14,243 18,394 12,519 

Total Copies Printed & Distributed ........................................................... 882,314 1,049,463 780,302 

To the Senate .................................................................................... 227,192 295,366 210,084 

To the House ..................................................................................... 331,165 397,327 326,648 

To the Executive Branch and the Public .......................................... 323,957 356,770 243,570 

Total Production Costs ............................................................................... $17,543,644 $16,014,706 $13,115,660 

Senate Costs ..................................................................................... $7,961,741 $6,640,823 $5,006,708 

House Costs ...................................................................................... $9,026,893 $8,933,244 $7,784,653 

Other Costs ....................................................................................... $555,010 $440,639 $324,299 

Accessing legislative documents through the Web has become increasingly popular. Before Senate legislation can be posted online, it must be received in the Senate through the OPDS. Improved database reports allow the office to report receipt 

of all legislative bills and resolutions received in the Senate which can then be made 

available online and accessed by other Web sites, such as LIS and Thomas, used 

by Congressional staff and the public. 

Customer Service 

The primary responsibility of the OPDS is to provide services to the Senate. However, the office also has a responsibility to the general public, the press, and other 

government agencies. Requests for legislative material are received at the walk-in 

counter, through the mail, by fax, and electronically. During 2006, online ordering 

of legislative documents increased 20 percent over the previous year. The Legislative Hot List Link, where Members and staff can confirm arrival of printed copies 

of the most sought after legislative documents continued to be popular. The site is 

updated several times daily each time new documents arrive from GPO to the Document Room. In addition, the office handled thousands of phone calls pertaining to 
186 

the Senate’s official printing, document requests and legislative questions. Recorded 

messages, fax, and e-mail operate around the clock and are processed as they are 

received, as are mail requests. The office stresses prompt, courteous customer service while providing accurate answers to Senate and public requests. 

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STATISTICS 

Year Congress/ 

session Public mail FAX request On-line request 

Counter request 

2003 ......................................................................................... 108/1st 1,469 2,596 735 53,040 

2004 ......................................................................................... 108/2nd 1,137 2,229 564 36,780 

2005 ......................................................................................... 109/1st 1,369 2,326 1,464 40,105 

2006 ......................................................................................... 109/2nd 1,048 1,633 1,751 26,640 

On-Demand Publication 

The office produces additional copies of legislation as needed by producing additional copies in the DocuTech Service Center, staffed by experienced GPO detailees, 

that provide Member offices and Senate committees with on-demand printing and 

binding of bills and reports. On-demand publication allows the department to cut 

the quantities of documents printed directly from GPO and reduces waste. The 

DocuTech is networked with GPO, allowing print files to be sent back and forth 

electronically. This allows the OPDS to print necessary legislation for the Senate 

floor, and other offices, in the event of a GPO COOP situation. During 2006, the 

DocuTech Center produced 683 tasks for a total of 752,174 printed pages; this represents a 29 percent increase in the number of jobs over the previous year. 

Accomplishments & Future Goals 

OPDS developed new database reports on serial set publications for the Senate 

Library and inventory tracking of materials housed in the SSF were developed. 

Electronic proofing procedures, implemented in early 2006, were very well received 

by Senate offices. Proofs of over three hundred new and revised print jobs were 

routed electronically for customer approval improving turn around time and efficiency. 

The office’s goals include working with GPO on their Future Digital and Microcomp Replacement Systems to improve efficiency and help answer the evolving 

needs of the Senate, as well as developing online ordering of stationery products for 

Senate offices. The Office of Printing and Document Services continues to seek new 

ways to use technology to assist Members and staff with added services and improved access to information. 

13. OFFICE OF PUBLIC RECORDS

The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains records, reports, 

and other documents filed with the Secretary of the Senate involving the Federal 

Election Campaign Act, as amended; the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct: Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate 

Gift Rule filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor’s Reports on Individuals Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports. 

The office provides for the inspection, review, and reproduction of these documents. From October, 2005, through September, 2006, the Public Records office staff 

assisted more than 2,400 individuals seeking information from reports filed with the 

office. This figure does not include assistance provided by telephone, nor help given 

to lobbyists attempting to comply with the provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 

of 1995 (LDA). A total of 140,000 photocopies were sold in the period. In addition, 

the office works closely with the Federal Election Commission, the Senate Select 

Committee on Ethics and the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives concerning 

the filing requirements of the aforementioned Acts and Senate rules. 

Fiscal Year 2006 Accomplishments 

The office modified its lobbying e-filing program to allow Adobe electronic forms 

generated by the Clerk of the House to be filed with the Secretary. 

Plans for Fiscal Year 2006 

The Public Records office intends to upgrade its lobbying e-filing program to conform with the change to IBM forms made by the Clerk of the House so that both 

systems are complementary. 
187 

Automation Activities 

During fiscal year 2006, the Senate Office of Public Records developed the capacity to be able to accept Clerk-generated electronic LDA forms. The office also upgraded its automation of the public financial disclosure system. 

Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended 

The Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly reports. Filings totaled 4,364 

documents containing 298,639 pages. 

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 

The Act requires semi-annual financial and lobbying activity reports. As of September 30, 2006, 6,554 registrants represented 21,468 clients and employed 35,844 

individuals who met the statutory definition of ‘‘lobbyist.’’ The total number of individual lobbyists disclosed on 2006 registrations and reports was 13,595. The total 

number of lobbying registrations and reports processed was 46,835. 

Public Financial Disclosure 

The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 15, 2006. The reports were available to the public and press by Wednesday, June 14th. Copies were 

provided to the Select Committee on Ethics and appropriate State officials. A total 

of 3,029 reports and amendments was filed containing 19,419 pages. There were 424 

requests to review or receive copies of the documents. 

Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule) 

The Senate Office of Public Records has received 803 reports during fiscal year 

2006. 

Registration of Mass Mailing 

Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis. The number of 

pages was 623. 

14. SENATE SECURITY

The Office of Senate Security (OSS) was established under the Secretary of the 

Senate by Senate Resolution 243 (100th Congress, 1st Session). The office is responsible for the administration of classified information programs in Senate offices and 

committees. In addition, OSS serves as the Senate’s liaison to the Executive Branch 

in matters relating to the security of classified information in the Senate. This report covers the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. 

Personnel Security 

Five hundred sixty-two Senate employees held one or more security clearances at 

the end of 2006. This number does not include clearances for employees of the Architect of the Capitol nor does it include clearances for Congressional Fellows assigned to Senate offices. OSS also processes these clearances. 

OSS processed 2,273 personnel security actions, a 3.7 percent decrease from 2005. 

One hundred-seven investigations for new security clearances were initiated last 

year, and 39 security clearances were transferred from other agencies. Senate regulations, as well as some Executive Branch regulations, require that individuals 

granted Top Secret security clearances be reinvestigated at least every five years. 

Staff holding Secret security clearances are reinvestigated every ten years. During 

the past 12 months, reinvestigations were initiated on 81 Senate employees. OSS 

processed 152 routine terminations of security clearances during the reporting period and transmitted 364 outgoing visit requests. The remainder of the personnel 

security actions consisted of updating access authorizations and compartments. 

Overall, the average time required to process a Senate employee for a security 

clearance has decreased from 332 days to 309 days. The average time for investigations has decreased by 7.4 percent relative to 2005. This is the first decrease since 

2002 when the average time was 167 days. The increase for 2002 to 2003 was 66.7 

percent, 2003 to 2004 was 25.6 percent, and 2004 to 2005 was 27.7 percent. The 

overall increase from 2002 to 2006 was 85 percent. The average time for an initial 

investigation conducted and adjudicated by DOD is 277 days from the date that 

OSS requests the investigation until the letter from DOD granting the clearance is 

received in Senate Security. The average time for DOD initial investigations decreased 9.2 percent. The periodic re-investigation process averages 335 days, a decrease of 13 percent relative to 2005. The average time for an initial investigation 

conducted by the FBI and adjudicated by DOD is 289 days while the periodic reinvestigation process averages 387 days. The FBI investigation with DOD adjudication times represents an increase of 12.9 percent and a decrease of 13.4 percent respectively. 
188 

One hundred ninety-nine records checks were conducted at the request of the FBI 

and Customs and Immigration. One record check was performed on behalf of Customs and Immigration. The remaining checks were performed for the FBI. This represents a 16.7 percent decrease in records checks completed by OSS. 

Security Awareness 

OSS conducted or hosted 63 security briefings for Senate staff. Topics included: 

information security, counterintelligence, foreign travel, security managers’ responsibilities, office security management, and introductory security briefings. This represents a 5 percent increase from 2005. 

Document Control 

OSS received or generated 2,488 classified documents consisting of 76,409 pages 

during calendar year 2006. This is a 10.9 percent decrease in the number of documents received or generated in 2005. Additionally, 48,276 pages from 2,233 classified documents no longer required for the conduct of official Senate business were 

destroyed. This represents a 45.3 percent decrease in destruction from 2005. OSS 

transferred 906 documents consisting of 23,742 pages to Senate offices or external 

agencies, up 29.4 percent from 2005. These figures do not include classified documents received directly by the Appropriations Committee, Armed Services Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and Select Committee on Intelligence, in accordance with agreements between OSS and those Committees. Overall, Senate Security completed 5,627 document transactions and handled over 148,427 pages of 

classified material in 2006, a decrease of 25.7 percent. 

Secure storage of classified material in the OSS vault was provided for 107 Senators, committees, and support offices. This arrangement minimizes the number of 

storage areas throughout the Capitol and Senate office buildings, thereby affording 

greater security for classified material. 

Secure Meeting Facilities 

OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 1,173 occasions by a total of 

7,854 people during 2006. Use of OSS conference facilities increased 27.6 percent 

over 2005 levels. Eight hundred thirty-six meetings, briefings, or hearings were conducted in OSS’ three conference rooms. Of those, seven were ‘‘All Senators’’ briefings 

and five were hearings. OSS also provided to Senators and staff secure telephones, 

secure computers, secure facsimile machine, and secure areas for reading and production of classified material on 337 occasions in 2006. 

Projects and Accomplishments 

The Office of Senate Security hosted the first annual Technical Exposition for the 

Office of the Director of National Intelligence in April 2006. Classified and unclassified exhibits representing the technical and scientific accomplishments of the U.S. 

Intelligence Community were shown to members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. 

House of Representatives, as well as cleared staff from throughout the Legislative 

Branch. OSS personnel provided assistance with security, site preparation, and escorting during the three months leading up to the Expo. The office and DNI are 

planning another Expo in April 2007. 

The Office of Senate Security is preparing to move to the Capitol Visitors Center 

expansion space when it is ready for occupancy. OSS has been coordinating with internal offices and other U.S. Government agencies to ensure the space will be appropriate for the storage, processing and discussion of classified material. OSS is developing plans and procedures for use of the new space and for moving the Senate’s 

classified holdings to the new space in a secure and efficient manner. 

15. STATIONERY ROOM

The mission of the Keeper of the Stationery is to: 

—Sell stationery items for use by Senate offices and other authorized legislative 

organizations. 

—Select a variety of stationery items to meet the needs of the Senate environment 

on a day-to-day basis and maintain a sufficient inventory of these items. 

—Purchase supplies utilizing open market procurement, competitive bid and/or 

GSA Federal Supply Schedules. 

—Maintain individual official stationery expense accounts for Senators, Committees, and Officers of the Senate. 

—Render monthly expense statements. 

—Ensure receipt of reimbursements for all purchases by the client base via direct 

payments or through the certification process. 
189 

—Make payments to all vendors of record for supplies and services in a timely 

manner and certify receipt of all supplies and services. 

—Provide delivery of all purchased supplies to the requesting offices. 

Fiscal Year 2006 

Statistics 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Statistics 

Gross Sales ............................................................................................................................. $4,945,381 $5,247,163 

Sales Transactions .................................................................................................................. 45,471 60,247 

Purchase Orders Issued .......................................................................................................... 6,795 8,611 

Vouchers Processed ................................................................................................................. 8,313 9,206 

Office Deliveries ...................................................................................................................... 6,085 NA 

Number of Items Delivered ..................................................................................................... 156,172 NA 

Number of Items Sold ............................................................................................................. 608,104 NA 

Mass Transit Media Sold ........................................................................................................ 86,483 75,607 

$20.00 ............................................................................................................................ 72,388 64,527 

$10.00 ............................................................................................................................ 4,510 3,923 

$5.00 .............................................................................................................................. 9,585 7,157 

Full Time Employees (FTE) ...................................................................................................... 13 13 

Fiscal Year 2006 Highlights and Projects 

Flag Purchase Modernization Project 

During fiscal year 2005, with the assistance of the Office of the AOC and the SAA, 

the Stationery Room began to offer Member offices the option of purchasing flags 

which had been flown over the Capitol, but were not date or occasion specific. Approximately thirty-seven percent of all flag requests by constituents were only to obtain a flag flown over the Capitol. If flags could be flown in advance, significant wait 

times could be reduced. In addition, the SAA’s Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail 

Division created artwork for a generic customizable flag certificate, along with a CD 

template that could be used in the customization process should a Member office 

choose. All flags which have been pre-flown come with a Certificate of Authenticity 

signed by the Architect, certifying each flag has been flown over the United States 

Capitol. Over the course of fiscal year 2006, interested Member offices were incorporated into the pre-flown Flag program. Eighty-six Member offices participate in 

the program. This program has been well received by the Senate community, with 

positive feedback from all levels. 

Senate Support Facility 

Fiscal year 2006 saw the migration and consolidation of the Stationery Room’s 

multiple storage locations into one central site. With the transfer of materials from 

the old facilities in February 2006 to the new SSF, product chain of custody is now 

maintained. The Stationery Room is looking at ways to use the facility to its maximum advantage and envision this as a major distribution outlet for all products by 

building a stock replenishment process and improving upon distributed services. 

Product Review Committee 

During fiscal year 2006, the Stationery Room developed a means to garner a better understanding of the needs of the Senate community. The Stationery Room created a Product Review Committee representing Member and committee offices to 

provide opinion, assessment, evaluation and feedback on products needed by the end 

users. While the committee is just underway, it has become an invaluable communication tool. 

Computer Modernization 

The Stationery Room completed acceptance testing on its new Microsoft Retail 

Point of Sale base applications along with the Great Plains/Business Dynamics accounting system in August 2006. This project was completed on time and under 

budget. The initial phase of the applications being completed, the Stationery Room 

staff will look to enhance the base system and take advantage of the various reporting capabilities. Part of the additional enhancements will include the feasibility of 

providing an e-commerce solution to the Senate community for order processing and 

fulfillment. 

Store Merchandising and Relocation Project 

During the last quarter of fiscal year 2006, the Stationery Room staff initiated 

a project for the sales area of the store. After completing a space utilization review 
190 

of the store facilities, the Stationery Room concluded that it needed to reduce shelf 

quantities on some products, while increasing quantities on others. Shelving was realigned to properly display products in a more convenient customer-oriented manner 

with like product groupings given high priority. 

16. WEB TECHNOLOGY

The Office of Web Technology is responsible for Web sites that fall under the purview of the Secretary of the Senate, including: the Senate Web site, www.senate.gov 

(except individual Senator and Committee pages); the Secretary’s Web site on Webster; an intranet site currently used for file-sharing by Secretary staff only; and a 

LegBranch Web server housing Web sites and project materials which can be 

accessed by staff at other Legislative Branch agencies. 

The Senate Web site—http://www. Senate.gov 

The United States Senate Web site celebrated its eleven year anniversary in 2006, 

as the first U.S. Senate home page on the World Wide Web was announced October 

20, 1995 on the Senate floor. From the Senate homepage members of the public 

could easily find the homepages for their own Senators. As the Web grew, so did 

the content and mission of Senate.gov. The pages of information became catalogs 

and databases, but the mission to provide the public with accurate and timely information remained constant. There were more than 70 million visitors to the Senate 

Web site in 2006—twenty million more than in 2005. 

The Senate Web site content is maintained by over 30 contributors from 7 departments of the Secretary’s Office and 3 departments of the Sergeant at Arms. Content 

Team Leaders meet regularly to share ideas and coordinate the posting of new content. 

Major Additions to the Site in 2006 

A redesigned graphical interface—Highlights of the redesign are the ‘‘Find Your 

Senators’’ and site-wide search boxes in the top right corner of every page. For the 

first time the Senate Web site has a site-wide search that uses the Google search 

features so familiar to our visitors. The new site received favorable reviews from 

U.S. News and Word Report. 

A new interactive exhibit on Isaac Bassett—Isaac Bassett served the Senate from 

his appointment as a page in 1831 until his death in 1895, when he was assistant 

doorkeeper. Bassett witnessed some of the most turbulent and exciting times in the 

institution’s history and he captured his observations in copious notes which have 

been donated to the Senate. An Isaac Bassett interactive exhibit has been created 

that allows the visitor to choose an event, via a timeline or subject listing, and to 

read a transcript of Bassett’s notes about the event. An image of the handwritten 

note is also available when viewing the transcript. 

A new interactive exhibit on the Senate Chamber Desks—There are 100 desks on 

the Senate Floor and each one has a history. The content relative to each desk in-
191 

cludes a textual description, list of former occupants, digitized images of the desk 

and the carvings (Senators carve their names in their desks when they leave the 

Senate), and notes on the desk’s condition and restoration. A Web-based interactive 

presentation has been created to display this rich information about the Senate 

desks. 

Cloture and veto tables for the Library. 

The Fine Arts Catalogue on the Web—images and text from the Catalogue have 

been published on the Senate site. 

Senator Bob Dole’s portrait unveiling—the video and transcript of the portrait unveiling event are posted for viewing. 

Homepage feature articles published on the following topics: the 10th anniversary 

of the Senate Web site and the launching of the new Web site design; the Congressional Biographical Directory Online; the launching of the Senate Chamber Desks 

site; We the People: Celebrating the American Constitution; and the publication of 

the United States Catalogue of Graphic Arts. 

A multimedia exhibit on the drawings of Lily Spandorf—During the 1962 Washington filming of the movie ‘‘Advise and Consent’’, freelance artist Lily Spandorf was 

sent by the Washington Star to make a few pen and ink illustrations of the production. Ms. Spandorf created a total of 68 pen and ink and two gauche (watercolor) 

drawings, all of which are now in the U.S. Senate Collection. A Flash multimedia 

presentation of Spandorf’s work has been created for the Web site, associating her 

drawings with movie clips from the specific scene the drawing depicts. 

Planned Additions to the Site in 2007 

A reorganized Art section—with the addition of the Fine Arts and Graphic Arts 

images the Art section of the site has grown considerably and needs to be indexed. 

A project to better organize content on www.senate.gov. The Web team is reviewing items for possible reorganization of information on the site. 

Accomplishments of the Office of Web Technology in 2006 

Upgraded Documentum CMS to 5.25 from 4.3. Encountered error which was determined to be a software bug by Documentum who advised upgrading to 5.3. Developed Statement of Work, requested proposals and contracted with RWD Technologies to review current upgrade status and assist with upgrade to version 5.3. 

Helped develop requirements for a taxonomy being built by Senate Librarians to 

organize information about Senators. 

The Web Content Assistant analyzed Google search terms each month and identified the need for additional Virtual Reference Desk (VRD) subject terms. New VRD 

pages were built. The VRD serves as an index to the site. 

Created production standards for the VRD. The standards include how the index 

will appear (in this case it is subject oriented) and what types of links to include. 

Established a system for assigning Google Keywords by analyzing the most common words people type in the search box each month, determining the items on the 

site that are most relevant to their search, and providing links to those items on 

the site. 

Designed the layout for the Spandorf exhibit. Organized all pictures, loaded them 

into CMS, and edited accompanying text. 

The Web Content Assistant audited the Senate.gov Web pages regularly, updating 

and correcting links; verifying content; and reviewing individual page designs 

throughout Senate.gov. 

The Assistant Webmaster worked with the SAA to develop and implement a solution for all Senate offices to use the Google search feature on their own Websites, 

based on the same techniques developed for Senate.gov, including allowing Senate 

offices to order their search results by date, instead of just relevance. 

Developed and implemented an XML-based solution for the Stationery room to export catalog data from their internal system and have it displayed on their Web site 

on Webster. Provided documentation and training for the office to continue to update the information themselves. 

Established and refined workflow and approval procedures for various postings including the feature article postings. 

Created documentation on how to use the CMS to post PDFs, new portraits, tables, feature bios, feature articles, and how to update current postings. Documented 

all the changes that need to occur to the site at the change of a Congress. 

The Web Content Assistant worked with the all the content providers to expand 

the style guide. This included how footnotes should appear on the Web as well as 

the standards for Senators’ names and the creation of tables. 

The Assistant Webmaster developed increasingly complex tables that are shared 

across several Web sites (www.senate.gov, the Webster/Senate Library site, and 
192 

www.congress.gov) to deliver the most relevant information to the intended audiences. The Xtags application was implemented on the new version of Webster to 

maintain previously developed projects. 

Teamed with CRS to organize monthly meetings of the LegBranch Webmasters 

Group. Hosted the meeting on Web 2.0. Recruited speakers from Democratic Policy 

Committee and Republican Policy Committee who spoke about the use of Podcasts, 

RSS, WML, wireless communications, and other Web 2.0 features by their respective constituencies. 

Senate.gov Usage Statistics 

In 2006 over 6 million visitors a month accessed the Senate Web site. Twentyeight percent of them entered through the main Senate home page while the majority came to the site via a bookmarked page or to a specific page from a search engine. Statistics on individual page activity show increases in many areas of the main 

Senate site. 

Title of Web Page 2005 Visits/ Month 2006 Visits/ Month 

2005–2006 

Percent Increase 

Entire Site .............................................................................................................. 4,512,000 6,081,000 35 

Senate Home Page ................................................................................................. 1,388,500 1,685,000 21 

Reviewing statistics on web page usage help the content providers better understand what information the public is seeking and how best to improve the presentation of that data. Visitors are consistently drawn to the following content items, 

listed in order of popularity. 

MOST VISITED PAGES IN 2006 

Top Pages 2005 Visits/ 

Month 

2006 Visits/ 

Month Percent Change 

Roll Call Votes ........................................................................................... 38,504 63,099 ∂64 

Active Legislation ....................................................................................... 22,582 30,053 ∂33 

Senate Leadership ..................................................................................... 21,371 19,278 ¥10 

Bills & Resolutions .................................................................................... 15,513 18,155 ∂17 

Committee Hearings Scheduled ................................................................. 19,019 15,901 ¥16 

Calendars & Schedules ............................................................................. 13,077 15,574 ∂19 

2005 Schedule ........................................................................................... 14,477 13,033 ¥10 

Senate Organization Chart ........................................................................ 13,203 12,438 ¥6 

Nominations ............................................................................................... 14,241 11,815 ¥17 

PAGES WITH LARGEST PERCENT INCREASES IN VIEWERS 

2005 Top Pages 2005 Visits/ Month 

2006 Visits/ Month Percent Change 

Statistics & Lists ....................................................................................... 9,334 15,981 ∂71 

Virtual Reference Desk .............................................................................. 8,285 13,568 ∂64 

Roll Call Votes ........................................................................................... 38,504 63,099 ∂64 

State Information ....................................................................................... 11,414 15,988 ∂40 

Active Legislation ....................................................................................... 22,582 30,053 ∂33 

Visitors are interested in legislative matters with Roll Call Vote Tallies, the Active Legislation table, and the Bill and Resolutions section being particularly popular. 

Based on their popularity in 2005, links to Statistics and Lists and the VRD were 

added to the home page when the site was redesigned in 2006, further increasing 

their popularity by 71 percent and 64 percent respectively. 

Webster—http://webster/secretary 

About 2,300 visitors a month access the Secretary’s Web site on Webster, the Senate Intranet, and statistics continue to show that the vast majority of visitors (87 

percent) go directly to the Disbursing office section. This section contains information on Employee Benefits (insurance, retirement, payroll, etc.) and provides access 

to the many forms employees need to obtain or modify these benefits. Other popular 

items include the Senate Library Web site, the Stationery Room Catalogue, Office 
193 

of Printing and Document Services Document Order and Print Order Forms, and 

the Web page that lists all Secretary of the Senate services. 

LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM (LIS) PROJECT

The LIS is a mandated system (Section 8 of the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2 U.S.C. 123e) that provides desktop access to the content and status 

of legislative information and supporting documents. The 1997 Legislative Branch 

Appropriations Act (2 U.S.C. 181) also established a program for providing the 

widest possible exchange of information among legislative branch agencies. The 

long-range goal of the LIS Project is to provide a ‘‘comprehensive Senate Legislative 

Information System’’ to capture, store, manage, and distribute Senate documents. 

Several components of the LIS have been implemented, and the project is currently 

focused on a Senate-wide implementation and transition to a standard system for 

the authoring and exchange of legislative documents that will greatly enhance the 

availability and re-use of legislative documents within the Senate and with other 

legislative branch agencies. The LIS Project office manages the project. 

Background: LISAP 

An April 1997 joint Senate and House report recommended establishment of a 

data standards program, and in December 2000, the Senate Committee on Rules 

and Administration and the Committee on House Administration jointly accepted 

the Extensible Markup Language (XML) as the primary data standard to be used 

for the exchange of legislative documents and information. 

Following the implementation of the LIS in January 2000, the LIS Project Office 

shifted its focus to the data standards program and established the LIS Augmentation Project (LISAP). The over-arching goal of the LISAP is to provide a Senate-wide 

implementation and transition to XML for the authoring and exchange of legislative 

documents. 

The current focus for the LISAP is the development and implementation of an 

XML authoring system for legislative documents produced by the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel (SLC) and the Office of the Enrolling Clerk. The XML authoring application is called LEXA, an acronym for the Legislative Editing in XML 

Application. LEXA replaces the DOS-based XyWrite software used by drafters to 

embed locator codes into legislative documents for printing. The XML codes inserted 

by LEXA provide more information about the document and can be used for printing, searching and displaying a document. LEXA features many automated functions that provide a more efficient and consistent document authoring process. The 

LIS Project Office has worked very closely with the SLC and the Enrolling Clerk 

to create an application that meets the needs for legislative drafting. 

LISAP: 2006 

Throughout 2006 additional features and fixes were added to LEXA, enabling the 

SLC to use the application for more and more of their drafting requests. Ninetyfive percent of introduced bills produced in the SLC were drafted in XML. Some of 

the new functionality added to LEXA in the last year included the following: 

—Ability to create and print several additional styles. 

—A one-click feature to reintroduce one type of document as another type of document, for example, taking the language from a bill and creating an amendment. 

—Ability to specify and print all document stages. 

—A feature to enter a prescribed 3- or 4-letter abbreviation into a document and 

have it resolve to a long name or phrase. 

—Ability to create amendments to appropriations bills. 

—Ability to create motions. 

LEXA developers also worked with the Office of the Enrolling Clerk to add engrossing and enrolling features and to provide for the exact formatting and printing 

requirements for documents created by that office. Several hours of training were 

provided to the staff, and the Enrolling Clerks began working in LEXA at the beginning of the 110th Congress. With the addition of the documents produced by the 

Office of the Enrolling Clerk, all stages of a measure can be produced in XML. 

Support for LEXA users remains an important priority. The LIS Project office provides support for LEXA via the LEXA HelpLine and LEXA Web site. The HelpLine 

is provided through a single phone number that rings on all the phones in the office, 

and the Web site is located on a server accessible by the legislative branch. The Web 

site, http://legbranch.senate.gov/lis/lexa, is used to distribute updates of the application to GPO and provides access to release notes, the reference manual, and other 

user aids. The 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed GPO to provide 

support for LEXA much as the office has for XyWrite. GPO continues to work to-
194 

ward augmenting the support provided by the LIS Project Office. Senate staff members in the LIS Project Office do development and provide support for LEXA. 

GPO maintains the software module that converts a Senate XML document to locator for printing through Microcomp, and in 2006, the module was expanded to also 

print House XML documents. GPO is also nearing completion of a tool to create and 

print tables. This software will be used by both the House and Senate, providing 

another module that is common to both applications. The House and Senate software development groups continue to work closely with GPO and the Library of 

Congress to reach agreement on technical authoring issues and standards, thereby 

eliminating the need for additional processing when documents are exchanged. 

The LEXA Reference Manual was updated by the LIS office in early 2006, and 

a 2007 update is underway. The manual provides screen shots and step-by-step instructions for all LEXA features. The Office also trained new SLC staff and the Enrolling Clerks on LEXA and provided several demonstrations on new LEXA features 

throughout the year. 

The LIS Project Office, the SLC, and the SAA’s Systems Development Services 

group have worked together for the past several years to implement a document 

management system (DMS) in the SLC. One obstacle has been the need for the SLC 

to continue to use XyWrite for certain documents. XyWrite is DOS-based software 

that does not work well in a Windows or database environment. In 2006, the team 

identified and purchased DMS software that will work with both LEXA and XyWrite documents. The Systems Development Services group is working with the 

SLC systems integrator to implement the software, and the LIS Project office will 

assist in the integration with LEXA. The DMS will provide a powerful tracking, 

management, and delivery tool for the SLC. 

LISAP: 2007 

The LIS Project office will continue to work with the House, GPO, and the Library 

of Congress on projects and issues that impact the legislative process and data 

standards for exchange. These groups are currently participating in two projects 

with GPO—one to define requirements for replacing the Microcomp composition 

software and another to improve the content submission and exchange processes. 

The Office of the Enrolling Clerk will use LEXA to produce engrossed and enrolled bills in XML. The LIS Project office will continue to work with the SLC and 

the Office of the Enrolling Clerk to refine and enhance LEXA so that more and more 

of the documents produced by those offices will be done in XML. Once all of the documents can be produced in XML using LEXA, those offices will be able to stop using 

XyWrite. Since XyWrite is not compatible with other Windows software, moving 

away from it will allow the offices to use more modern technologies for all functions. 

Other Senate offices that do drafting with XyWrite may begin using LEXA, including the Committee on Appropriations. 

The legislative process yields other types of documents such as the Senate and 

Executive Journals and the Legislative and Executive Calendars. Much of the data 

and information included in these documents is already captured in and distributed 

through the LIS/DMS database used by the clerks in the Office of the Secretary. 

The LIS/DMS captures data that relates to legislation including bill and resolution 

numbers, amendment numbers, sponsors, co-sponsors, and committees of referral. 

This information is currently entered into the database and verified by the clerks 

and then keyed into the respective documents and re-verified at GPO before printing. An interface between this database and the electronic documents could mutually exchange data. For example, the LIS/DMS database could insert the bill number, additional co-sponsors, and committee of referral into an introduced bill while 

the bill draft document could supply the official and short titles of the bill to the 

database. 

The Congressional Record, like the Journals and Calendars, includes data that is 

contained in and reported by the LIS/DMS database. Preliminary DTDs have been 

designed for these documents, and applications could be built to construct XML document components by extracting and tagging the LIS/DMS data. These applications 

would provide a faster, more consistent assembly of these documents and would enhance the ability to index and search their contents. The LIS Project office will coordinate with the Systems Development Services Branch of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to begin design and development of XML applications and interfaces 

for the LIS/DMS and legislative documents. As more and more legislative data and 

documents are provided in XML formats that use common elements across all document types, the Library of Congress will be able to expand the LIS Retrieval System 

to provide more content-specific searches. 
195 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. And, I do have a few 

questions. And, what we’re going to try to do is to finish this portion of the hearing in about 10 or 15 minutes, and then go on to 

the Library of Congress. We may have votes called, but we’re going 

to try to complete the hearing before 11 o’clock, if we can. 

PRIMARY GOALS

Let me ask you, Madam Secretary, what are your three primary 

goals in your tenure? I’m sure you’ve had some time now to think 

about the three things that you would like to accomplish as your 

personal goals, on what you can leave, or contribute during your 

time. Just list them for the subcommittee if you would. 

Ms. ERICKSON. First of all, I’d like to build on the strong leadership of my predecessor, Emily Reynolds. But three things that immediately come to mind, I want to continue to push more information to the web, as I mentioned in my statement. I’d like our Stationery Room to offer e-commerce options to Senate offices. I think 

that Senate office administrators could find that it would be beneficial to them to be able to purchase office supplies online from our 

Stationery Room. 

In addition, I’d like to revamp our Secretary’s website to push 

more information onto Webster to make it easier for the Senate 

community to access and understand the services that we provide. 

Second of all, my predecessor spent a great deal of time working 

on continuity of operations planning. And, that’s something that I 

want to build on, not only continuity of operations planning, but 

continuity of Government planning. I hope we never become complacent in our preparations, and that we will always be ready in 

a minute’s notice to support the Chamber under any circumstance. 

It also relates to our Senate Disbursing Office. We practice at 

least once a year with the Sergeant at Arms from a remote location, making sure that we can process our payroll and vouchers for 

Senate offices. And, that’s something that I’d really like to step up, 

to do more than once a year. 

And my third goal is to implement the paperless voucher system, 

another program that I think would be extremely popular for office 

administrators. My understanding is that the project is at a critical 

stage. We’re working with our oversight committee, the Rules and 

Administration Committee, to work out issues related to electronic 

signatures. 

Those are my three goals. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, let me encourage you along all three 

goals that you’ve outlined, and particularly the second one. Having 

gone through, of course the recent and still very harsh experience 

of Hurricane Katrina, having to watch governments, to maintain 

their integrity in very desperate circumstances, and having had the 

experience of 9/11. It is a very, very important aspect of your work, 

to be able to maintain the functions of this Senate under any and 

all circumstances. And, I would imagine that the bulk of that work 

falls on your shoulders, the responsibility along with, of course, 

whatever, the military and the Capitol Police could bring to bear 

to that situation. So, I want to thank you. 
196 

SENATE EMPLOYMENT STUDY

Let me ask just about the Senate employment study. Are you in 

the process of such a study? Our employees are working long hours 

and weekends. Have we completed our pay study, which was authorized by this subcommittee? Can you give us some detail about 

the outcome of that study? 

Ms. ERICKSON. I’d be happy to do so. 

Your subcommittee appropriated, I believe, $80,000 for the Office 

of the Secretary to complete a pay study. We competitively bid the 

project to a contractor who conducted a survey. It’s my understanding 81 Senate offices participated in the payroll survey. They 

were asked such questions related to not only the rate of pay for 

employees and their benefits, but also to the organizational structure of their respective office. 

The results were compiled, analyzed, and a report was distributed to every Member office, and committee in June of last year. 

This past January, we provided a follow-up report to Senate offices 

that provided a comparison of Senate and House salaries. It was 

warmly received by the Senate community, particularly the offices 

of new Members who were in the process of hiring staff. And, I’d 

be happy to provide you with a written copy of the report if you’d 

like additional details of the study. 

[The information follows:] 
197 

SALARY COMPARISON FOR SIMILAR POSITIONS IN THE U.S. SENATE AND THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Position Chamber Number of Po- sitions Minimum Average Maximum 25th Per- centile 50th Per- centile 75th Per- centile 

Chief of Staff ........................................................................................................................... Senate ....... 84 $114,000 $151,767 $160,659 $147,000 $157,150 $160,659 Chief of Staff ........................................................................................................................... House ........ 125 $87,000 $129,736 $160,000 $116,000 $130,000 $148,500 Legislative Director .................................................................................................................. Senate ....... 77 $85,000 $116,952 $160,659 $102,186 $120,000 $127,830 Legislative Director .................................................................................................................. House ........ 100 $42,000 $76,490 $120,000 $67,000 $77,750 $85,000 Counsel .................................................................................................................................... Senate ....... 61 $42,000 $95,210 $155,000 $75,500 $95,000 $110,865 Counsel .................................................................................................................................... House ........ 7 $62,400 $83,771 $130,000 $65,000 $80,000 $89,000 Director of Special Projects and/or Grants ............................................................................. Senate ....... 51 $24,000 $52,995 $103,000 $37,324 $49,825 $65,000 Grants and Projects Coordinator ............................................................................................. House ........ 18 $22,000 $48,949 $67,000 $37,250 $54,500 $60,837 Legislative Assistant ............................................................................................................... Senate ....... 406 $34,000 $66,789 $150,000 $52,000 $65,000 $77,580 Legislative Aide ....................................................................................................................... House ........ 164 $28,000 $43,433 $76,500 $36,000 $41,000 $50,000 Legislative Correspondent ....................................................................................................... Senate ....... 348 $20,000 $32,802 $75,000 $29,000 $32,000 $36,000 Legislative Correspondent ....................................................................................................... House ........ 71 $25,000 $31,807 $43,000 $29,000 $31,000 $34,000 Communications Director ........................................................................................................ Senate ....... 69 $52,000 $95,050 $160,659 $82,752 $94,620 $104,500 Press Secretary/Communications Director 1 ............................................................................ House ........ 87 $32,000 $58,756 $125,000 $45,000 $55,000 $68,250 Press Secretary ........................................................................................................................ Senate ....... 80 $40,000 $66,027 $110,784 $54,000 $63,000 $76,169 Press Secretary/Communications Director 1 ............................................................................ House ........ 87 $32,000 $58,756 $125,000 $45,000 $55,000 $68,250 Executive Assistant .................................................................................................................. Senate ....... 58 $29,000 $68,060 $121,000 $50,259 $68,750 $81,625 Executive Assistant .................................................................................................................. House ........ 30 $15,000 $51,257 $107,000 $39,000 $48,750 $63,875 Scheduler (Washington, D.C.) .................................................................................................. Senate ....... 74 $28,500 $63,634 $128,000 $50,000 $59,698 $75,000 Scheduler (Washington, D.C.) .................................................................................................. House ........ 46 $24,000 $48,394 $99,000 $37,875 $46,350 $55,625 Systems Administrator ............................................................................................................. Senate ....... 77 $24,000 $60,955 $105,000 $50,000 $60,000 $75,420 Systems Administrator ............................................................................................................. House ........ 11 $20,000 $39,898 $62,000 $31,000 $40,000 $45,500 Administrative Director/Office Manager .................................................................................. Senate ....... 68 $31,500 $78,266 $149,700 $67,006 $78,000 $89,500 Office Manager ........................................................................................................................ House ........ 39 $21,000 $52,922 $107,200 $36,000 $50,000 $64,000 Receptionist/Staff Assistant 2 .................................................................................................. Senate ....... 325 $10,712 $29,664 $72,000 $25,860 $28,000 $31,027 Staff Assistant (Washington, D.C.) ......................................................................................... House ........ 86 $18,000 $29,872 $71,000 $25,000 $28,000 $30,000 Staff Assistant (District) ......................................................................................................... House ........ 77 $16,006 $30,883 $79,966 $25,000 $28,500 $33,000 Constituent Services Representative/Caseworker .................................................................... Senate ....... 398 $21,000 $38,631 $84,821 $31,000 $36,204 $44,092 Constituent Services Representative/Caseworker .................................................................... House ........ 231 $13,500 $40,814 $115,000 $31,000 $40,000 $46,500 State Director ........................................................................................................................... Senate ....... 75 $60,000 $104,748 $160,659 $90,000 $103,500 $116,248 District Director ....................................................................................................................... House ........ 72 $39,200 $78,526 $150,000 $63,000 $77,841 $91,000 Field Representative ................................................................................................................ Senate ....... 340 $19,000 $50,742 $104,000 $41,000 $49,100 $60,000 Field Representative ................................................................................................................ House ........ 100 $25,000 $46,508 $75,000 $37,125 $45,000 $55,000 State Scheduler ....................................................................................................................... Senate ....... 48 $28,500 $49,886 $89,000 $38,000 $46,500 $61,217 
198 

SALARY COMPARISON FOR SIMILAR POSITIONS IN THE U.S. SENATE AND THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—Continued 

Position Chamber Number of Po- sitions Minimum Average Maximum 25th Per- centile 50th Per- centile 75th Per- centile 

District Scheduler .................................................................................................................... House ........ 34 $28,000 $46,366 $80,000 $33,000 $43,500 $61,065 

1 The House study did not distinguish between Communications Director and Press Secretary. House data for these positions reflect the combined Press Secretary/Communications Director position. 2 The Senate study did not distinguish between Staff Assistants in Washington, D.C. and State offices, while the House study did make this distinction. 

81 offices participated in the Senate study and 141 offices participated in the House study. Sources: 2006 U.S. Senate Employment, Compensation, Hiring and Benefits Study, Office of the Secretary of the Senate (June 28, 2006). 2006 House Compensation Study: Guide for the 110th Congress, Chief Administrative Office, U.S. House of Representatives (November 13, 2006). 
199 

The 2006 U.S. Senate Employment, Compensation, Hiring and Benefits Study— 

June 28, 2006 is available on the web at: http://webster.senate.gov/library/catalogs/ 

PDF/senatelcompensationlreportlFINALl7-26-06.pdf 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay, I would. And we won’t go into the details now, but I’m going to review it to see what we can do to make 

sure that our workforce remains competitive. 

STUDENT LOAN REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM

And, one other question, then I’ll turn it over, the student loan 

reimbursement program is something that’s just recently come to 

my attention. I understand that there’s a program that works in 

a way that allows staffers—I’m not sure if it’s just for Members’ offices, or for anyone in the Senate—to see a reduction in student 

loans to help some of the young, I would imagine, younger employees coming in. Can you give me an update about that program and 

if it’s based on need? Or is it distributed equally to the States 

based on population, or just request? 

Ms. ERICKSON. It’s a program run through our Senate Disbursing 

Office, and I believe the funding is based on 2 percent of the administrative and clerical portion of the Member’s account, 2 percent 

of the account of all others. I’d be happy to have Chris Doby followup with you on details of that. It’s my understanding that 96 percent of our 140 Senate accounting locations, which includes Senate 

offices, committees, Secretary of the Senate, and Sergeant at Arms 

offices participate in the program. We have approximately 1,100 

employees that are participating in the program. In conversations 

that I’ve had with Senate office administrators, they tell me that 

it’s been an important tool for not only attracting staff, but also retaining staff in their offices. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Senator Allard. 

Senator ALLARD. Again, Nancy, I’d like to congratulate you on 

your position. 

Coming to the office, what do you view, at this point, your greatest challenges to be? 

Ms. ERICKSON. I would say maintaining a high level of customer 

service. And, I would say, speaking from someone who worked in 

a Senate office for 16 years and 2 years in a Sergeant at Arms office, I think it’s easy to take for granted the services that Secretary 

of the Senate, and for that matter, the Sergeant at Arms provides. 

And the staff, for the most part, works quietly behind the scenes, 

but their work is critical, for, in—— 

Senator ALLARD. Is there any particular area you can think of 

that we need to work on? 

Ms. ERICKSON. Not an area, I don’t see any glaring problems, 

Senator. I think our biggest challenge is just maintaining and 

meeting the high demands that the Senate community should justifiably expect from us. 

Senator ALLARD. I think technology changes would be the challenge. 

Ms. ERICKSON. Right. And continuing to move information, as I 

said, that’s one of my priorities, to move more and more information to the web. 
200 

WEBSTER

Senator ALLARD. Now, Webster, that’s the intranet. Is that completely blocked off from the Internet or do people outside the Senate have access to Webster? 

Ms. ERICKSON. Yes, Webster is an internal site. 

Senator ALLARD. So it’s completely walled off? 

Ms. ERICKSON. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

MERIT INCREASES

You mentioned in your testimony, you wanted some funding for 

merit increases. How do you go about determining whether somebody qualifies for a merit increase? Do you have a set protocol that 

you use? 

Ms. ERICKSON. We do. Our human resource director oversees 

that merit program and works closely with our department directors. There are rigorous goals that people have to meet in order to 

be eligible for a merit increase. But, it’s something that we like to 

have to reward people who, in our opinion, have gone above and 

beyond what is expected of them to help the Senate community. 

Senator ALLARD. Are you having to use merit increases to get 

qualified people into the job? Do you see what I’m saying? The 

standard base pay may not be quite enough—— 

Ms. ERICKSON. Right. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. So they say, ‘‘Well, you’re here 6 

months, we’ll be able to provide some substantial merit-based ——’’ 

Ms. ERICKSON. Exactly. Well, it is an important recruiting tool, 

and an incentive for people that know that that may be available 

if they exceed expectations. So, it has been an important tool to not 

only attract, but to retain talented staff who have many options— 

particularly, Senator, people in the technology field which is very 

competitive in the private sector, and so that’s been an important 

tool for us to keep quality people. 

Senator ALLARD. When you use the merit system, do you use 

more than just longevity as the standard? 

Ms. ERICKSON. Correct, exactly. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, and how often are you having to use the 

merit pay? Do most employees qualify, or 10 percent, or 20 percent? 

Ms. ERICKSON. I don’t have that data with me, Senator. I’d be 

happy to provide that to you in writing. 

Senator ALLARD. I think that would be of interest. 

Ms. ERICKSON. I’d be happy to do that. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, very good. 

[The information follows:] 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

Washington, DC, May 23, 2007. 

The Honorable WAYNE ALLARD, 

Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, United 

States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. 

DEAR SENATOR ALLARD: Thank you for the courtesies you extended to me during 

my testimony before your Subcommittee earlier this month. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the work of the Secretary’s office and our plans for the upcoming 

year. You had requested additional information regarding the merit program em-
201 

ployed by the Office of the Secretary, and I hope the information provided below 

adequately addresses any questions you may have. 

In September 1997, the office developed and implemented an Employee Feedback 

and Development Plan (EFDP), which is a formal merit review program. Each staff 

member is provided annually with specific performance objectives on which their 

performance will be evaluated throughout the year. Staff members are evaluated on 

factors such as quality of work, initiative, resourcefulness, dependability, reliability, 

and communication skills. In addition, managers are evaluated on their leadership 

skills, decision making, and ability to plan, schedule and budget the needs of their 

departments. To facilitate communication between managers and their staff, managers are encouraged to meet with each staff member quarterly to discuss progress, 

specific projects and any issues that may impede the employee’s progress throughout the year. 

Our Human Resources Office administers the program and works closely with me 

and my executive staff to determine our annual merit budget, which usually ranges 

from three to five percent of our overall salary budget. All staff are evaluated in 

September each year with the potential for a performance-based merit increase 

awarded in October. Increases range from zero to the maximum percent the Secretary approves, and they are based on the employee’s performance as documented 

in the EFDP by the employee’s manager. 

As is the case with other employee-centered programs offered by the Office and 

the Secretary the goal of the EFDP is to develop, motivate and retain the highest 

caliber professional staff to serve the needs of the Senate. 

I will be happy to provide you with any other information you may need about 

this merit review program. 

NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary of the Senate. 

CROSSTRAINING

Senator ALLARD. I was pleased to see you worked on 

crosstraining. I think that’s efficient—somebody’s absent, have 

somebody else step in and carry on their responsibilities. So, I want 

to compliment you on focusing on crosstraining. 

Ms. ERICKSON. I appreciate that. 

Senator ALLARD. You obviously want to have your experts in various areas, but if for some reason or other they can’t make it to 

work, you have people who can fill in. 

Ms. ERICKSON. Exactly. And, you’ll notice that at the rostrum in 

the Senate Chamber, the faces change periodically for that very 

purpose, to make sure that people understand, can step in and do 

someone else’s duty. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. That finalizes the questions that 

I have. I just want to state for the record that I’d like to focus some 

of my attention, Madam Secretary, on the quality of the Capitol 

tours, and talk with you about that, and about the access to Senate 

recordings through web-based technologies. And, I want to continue 

to pursue that. To make sure that our pay and payroll are adequately supporting a first-class professional staff for the Senate. 

Your plans in terms of disaster preparedness and emergency preparedness are extremely, extremely important. 

And, then as we open this new Capitol Visitor Center, as I said 

before, despite all the problems that we’ve had which have been 

well publicized, it really is an extraordinary space, that I think is 

going to be a great gift to the American people. 

And, we want to make sure that the statues and artwork reflect 

the true contributions of all Americans, even those who contributed 

a great deal in the early part of our country, women and minority 
202 

Americans that weren’t, by virtue of their sex or gender, even able 

to run for an office here. But, they nonetheless, contributed greatly 

to the work of this Capitol and what this Capitol represents. So, 

I’m looking forward to working with you and others. 

And, if that is—Senator Allard, do you have anything else? 

Senator ALLARD. I don’t. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ERICKSON. Thank you very much. 
(203) 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

ACCOMPANIED BY JO ANN JENKINS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Dr. Billington, if you will come forward. 

Thank you Dr. Billington, and welcome. We are very pleased to 

have you here this morning and recognize your 20th year as the 

Librarian of Congress. Your budget request is $652 million, which 

is an increase, roughly, of about $100 million, or 19 percent, above 

the current year. Your request includes $45 million for the construction of a new logistics facility at Fort Meade. Of course you 

know, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) did not include this 

among his many priorities, so we want to hear some testimony 

from you about why you believe this is a high priority. 

There are several other large items in your request, such as $21 

million to restore funding for the National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Program and $19 million for the first of 

four installments of the Digital Talking Book Program, which I 

know has support from members of the visually impaired community throughout the country. This is a very important, significant 

investment in the future of audio book programs. We want to make 

sure we use our resources wisely, and take advantage of the absolute best technology available. 

As I’ve said in previous hearings, and it bears repeating today, 

I think the subcommittee is going to really struggle with reaching 

some of these requests. And, I don’t want to mislead you in any 

way, however, we do want to give you an opportunity, obviously, 

to state your best case and to ask you questions about it. And, 

please don’t interpret that these comments in any way indicate 

that this Chair doesn’t support the great work that you do. But we 

have budget constraints that we’re under and we just need to really focus on some of these extra requests. 

Senator Allard. 

Senator ALLARD. I don’t have any comment. I’d like to hear Dr. 

Billington’s testimony. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Dr. Billington. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE LIBRARIAN

Dr. BILLINGTON. We have a fuller submission for the record, but 

I appreciate the opportunity to present briefly the Library of Congress’ 2008 budget request, and to thank the Congress for creating 

and sustaining the largest and most wide-ranging collection of 

knowledge in human history, a great record of American creativity 

and a distinct world leadership role for education on the Internet. 
204 

The Library’s request includes four critical priorities. The first— 

and the largest part of our increase, nearly one-half—is simply to 

sustain current services by funding mandatory pay raises and unavoidable price level increases. 

We’re currently doing a very great deal more work than 15 years 

ago, before we began superimposing the digital on the analog universe, but with 640 fewer full-time employees. If mandated pay 

raises are not fully funded, we will almost certainly have to cut 

back on some services. 

LOGISTICS CENTER AT FORT MEADE

Because of the life, safety, and environmental conditions of our 

present Landover center, we are forced, once again, to request 

funding for a logistics center at Fort Meade—but at a reduced 

level, that is $12.2 million less than was submitted through the Architect of the Capitol’s budget last year. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS

There’s a special importance to the next two priorities, which are 

key elements in the digital transformation of the Library. After 10 

years of planning and research, we must launch, this year, our 4- 

year initiative to modernize access to reading for the blind and 

physically handicapped. 

Blind people read, on average, 35 books a year—many more than 

sighted people. They depend heavily on the Library of Congress’ 

unique collection, particularly of talking books, which is equivalent 

in size to a mid-sized public library. And it is made available free 

of charge through local libraries all over America. But it needs 

long-discussed, new digital players that can replace cassette-type 

players which are nearing obsolescence, and also a new mechanism 

for distribution—flash memory cartridges. 

ACQUISITIONS

Finally, there is an urgent need to shore up the first and most 

basic need of any library, which is acquisitions. This is particularly 

true for the National Library, which is—in many ways—the strategic information reserve of the United States. It’s a treasure chest 

of material not preserved anywhere else, at a time when more and 

more of our economic competitiveness, our basic security, and our 

civic health depend on accurate information. 

We need a $2 million increase in our basic book budget, which 

has been steadily eroded in purchasing power. 

NATIONAL DIGITAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PRESERVATION PROGRAM RESCISSION

We must have the minimal funds needed to sustain our congressionally mandated role of leading a national program by forming a 

network of private and public partners to set national standards for 

preserving the exploding world of material available only in highly 

perishable digital form, and begin sorting out and preserving 

what’s most important. Congress was farsighted in the year 2000, appropriating $100 

million in no-year funding to create the National Digital Informa-
205 

tion Infrastructure and Preservation Program, known as NDIIPP, 

and requiring that $75 million of the Federal appropriation be 

matched by partners. The NDIIPP Program is the most sweeping 

strategic change that this Library has undertaken in its entire 207- 

year history. For the first time ever, we are transforming the way 

we collect and preserve content, and sharing stewardship responsibility and cost with trusted partners. Without significant restoration of the funds that were rescinded this year, we will be unable 

to continue to build the network at a time when networks are the 

way of working for the future. If we let this initiative end now, we 

will not be able to resurrect it later. 

Forty-seven million dollars—nearly one-half of the original $100 million appropriation—was rescinded, and an additional $37 million was lost in matching funds promised from more than 50 network partners. Faced with the prospect of the $84 million overall 

loss for this program, we have carefully scrubbed our request for 

restoration down to the bare essential of $21.5 million. 

The loss of the NDIIPP funds would have long-term consequences for the Library’s ability to preserve materials of importance for our economy and security, as well as the record of our culture, which is increasingly recorded now, only in digital form. 

We need this program to serve the growing information needs of 

the Congress, and to keep us from drifting toward a slippery slope, 

in which the Library would become just a museum of the book on 

Capitol Hill, rather than the backbone of a dynamic network for 

preserving and making useful for our Nation, new digital as well 

as traditional analog material. 

WORKING WITH PARTNERS

Louisiana has been a major focus of NDIIPP partners who have 

worked with archivists and librarians across the country to identify 

hundreds of websites documenting aspects of the Katrina tragedy. 

These websites, as preserved, will give us all information needed 

to better understand this tragedy, and to improve our country’s response to future natural disasters. 

In emergencies such as Katrina, we provided information to Congress and salvage training in the affected region. This very week, 

when we heard that the Georgetown branch of the D.C. Public Library was ablaze, our preservation staff responded immediately, 

helping locate freezers in which to store books until they can be 

treated, providing guidance on next steps to save the collections. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

We deeply appreciate, Madam Chairman, the support that Congress has given the Library over the years—for preserving and 

making accessible our massive written and printed collections, as 

well as our unequaled audiovisual collections, which are now acquiring their permanent preservation center with the capacity to 

store 25 years’ more accumulation at nearby Culpeper, Virginia, 

thanks to funding from the Packard Humanities Institute, the largest private donation, by far, ever made to the Library of Congress. 

We need to do the same for digital material together with our private and public network of partners. 

I’m prepared to answer your questions. 
206 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Dr. Billington. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON

Madam Chairwoman, Senator Allard, and other members of the Subcommittee: I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the past accomplishments and future goals of the Library of Congress in the context of our fiscal 

year 2008 budget request. I ask for your continued support to ensure that the Library maintains its prestigious place as the world’s largest repository of human 

knowledge and the main research arm of the United States Congress. 

With all the distinction that this institution has achieved in the print world, it 

now faces the unprecedented challenge of sustaining its leadership amidst the revolutionary changes of the digital world. Information-seekers have many ways of finding what they need, but they are often overwhelmed or misled by the profusion of 

unfiltered and sometimes inaccurate information on the Internet. The Library of 

Congress is redefining its role in this new environment. 

The budget request we have submitted to you includes the following basic assumptions: 

—There is no change in the Library’s historic mission of acquiring, preserving, 

and making its materials accessible and useful to the Congress and the nation. 

But the amount of information and the explosion in the number of creators are 

driving the greatest revolution in the generation and communication of knowledge since the advent of the printing press. The Library must seamlessly blend 

new digital materials into the traditional artifactual collections so that knowledge and information can be objectively and comprehensively provided by a fully 

integrated library. 

—The Library of Congress must continue to build comprehensive, world-wide collections in all formats so that Members of Congress, scholars, school students, 

and the American people will have access to valid, high-quality information for 

their work, their research, and their civic participation. 

—The Library must actively seek new and innovative ways to recognize, highlight, and celebrate the knowledge and creativity that the Congress has charged 

us to preserve for more than 200 years. 

—A comprehensive institutional workforce transformation will be required for 

staff to continue providing the highest levels of service to the Congress and to 

the public. The Library has developed an agency-wide framework for program 

assessment of every division and support office. Congressional support has already enabled us to reengineer copyright functions and to create a state of the 

art National Audiovisual Conservation Center. We are developing new roles for 

key staff to become objective ‘‘knowledge navigators’’ who can make knowledge 

useful from both the artifactual and the digital world. 

THE LIBRARY AND ITS PROGRAMS

The Library of Congress is the world’s largest repository of human knowledge and 

the main research arm of the United States Congress. It directly serves not only 

the Congress, but the entire nation with the most important commodity of our time: 

information. The Library’s diverse programs sustain its responsibility to foster a 

free and informed society by building, preserving, and providing resources for 

human creativity, wisdom and achievement. Through these programs, the Library 

strives to place its resources at the fingertips of our elected representatives, the 

American people, and the world for their mutual prosperity, enlightenment, and inspiration. 

The Library of Congress collections are made up of approximately 135 million 

artifactual items in more than 470 languages including: 32 million books (among 

them more than 5,000 printed before the year 1500); 14 million photographs and 

other visual items; 5.3 million maps; 2.8 million audio materials; 981,000 films, television, and video items; 5.5 million pieces of music; 59.5 million manuscripts; and 

hundreds of thousands of scientific and government documents. 

Under the Library’s four major appropriations, the Library funds the following 

major services: 

Library of Congress, S&E 

Acquisitions.—The Library staff adds more than 13,000 items to the collections 

every day. The Library collects not only regularly published materials, but also reports that have limited distribution, international ephemera that illuminate other 

cultures and socio-political movements, and special collections that have been carefully assessed and selected by our curators. The collections, and the information 
207 

they contain provide important support for the many services the Library provides 

to the Congress and the nation. 

Cataloging.—The Library produces bibliographic records and related products and 

develops policy and standards for libraries and bibliographic utilities in all fifty 

states, the District of Columbia, and territories—cataloging more than 345,000 

books and serials in fiscal year 2006—services that save America’s libraries millions 

of dollars annually (the money it would cost them if they had to catalog the books 

and other materials themselves). 

Research and Reference.—The Library responds to, at no cost to users, nearly one 

million information requests a year from across the nation, including more than 

500,000 in-person requests in the 20 reading rooms open to the public in Washington, D.C. In addition, the Library responds to some 56,000 interlibrary loan requests from across the nation and more than 25,000 requests for book loans from 

the Congress each year. 

Online Access Services.—The Library is at the forefront of providing comprehensive online digital access services, the conversion of analog materials into digital 

form, Web archiving, the provision of the Library’s web based digital library services, and education outreach services that encourage use of the Library’s online primary sources. The Library’s online presence during 2006 resulted in 5 billion hits. 

There are now more than 22 million digital items represented on the Library’s web 

sites, including materials digitized from the collections and exhibitions, program activities, and interpretive information. Over half of these digital items reside in the 

Library’s virtual historical collections, American Memory. The Library’s web site offers electronic versions of many resources of historical research and educational 

value that no other institution provides. In addition, the Library already has captured a total of 56 terabytes of content from the Web, and this volume continues 

to grow significantly. This total represents more than 1 billion documents 

downloaded from the Web, the equivalent of digital text information from more than 

55 million books (1 megabyte per book of text only). 

American Creativity.—The Library manages the largest, most varied, and most 

important archival collection of American creativity—including motion pictures, 

sound recordings, maps, prints, photographs, manuscripts, music, and folklore covering a wide range of ethnic and geographic communities. The Library provides reference assistance to researchers and the general public, conducts field research, and 

promotes the preservation of American culture throughout the United States. 

Preservation.—The Library develops and manages a program to preserve the diverse materials and formats in the Library’s collections. The program provides a full 

range of prospective and retrospective preservation treatment for hundreds of thousands of items a year, conducts research into new technologies, emphasizes prevention techniques including proper environmental storage and training for emergency 

situations, conserves and preserves materials, and reformats materials to more stable media. The Library plays a key role in developing national and international 

standards that support the work of federal, state, and local agencies in preserving 

the nation’s cultural heritage. 

Reading Promotion and Outreach.—The Library promotes books, reading, and literacy through the Library’s Center for the Book, its affiliated centers in fifty states 

and the District of Columbia, and nearly one hundred national organizational partners. The Library encourages knowledge and use of its collections through other outreach programs (cable TV, lectures, publications, conferences and symposia, exhibitions, poetry readings—all primarily supported by private funding) and through the 

Library’s virtual presence on the Web. The Library also gives some 90,000 surplus 

books annually to qualified libraries and nonprofit educational institutions through 

its nationwide donation program. 

Digital Initiatives.—The Library oversees and coordinates cross-institutional digital initiatives, including the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP). The vision of NDIIPP is to ensure access over time to 

a rich body of digital content through the establishment of a national network of 

committed partners, collaborating in a digital preservation architecture with defined 

roles and responsibilities. 

Law Library.—The Law Library program provides direct research service to the 

Congress in international and comparative law. It serves as the National Law Library. In addition to Members and Committee staffs of the Congress and the Congressional Research Service, the Law Library provides officers of the legislative 

branch, Justices of the Supreme Court and other judges, members of the Departments of State and Justice, and other federal agencies with bibliographic and informational services, background papers, comparative legal studies, legal interpretations, and translations. In support of this mission, the Law Library has amassed 

the largest collection of authoritative legal sources in the world, including more than 
208 

2.5 million volumes as well as almost 134,000 digital items. As its congressional priorities permit, the Law Library makes its collections and services available to a diverse community of users—the foreign diplomatic corps, international organizations, 

members of the bench and bar, educational institutions, non-governmental libraries, 

legal service organizations, and the general public—directly serving more than 

100,000 users annually and offering information to the global public through its online services, including its Global Legal Information Network (GLIN). 

Copyright Office, S&E 

The Copyright Office (CO) administers the U.S. copyright laws, provides copyright 

policy analysis to the Congress and executive branch agencies, actively promotes 

international protections for intellectual property created by U.S. citizens, and provides public information and education on copyright. In fiscal year 2006, the CO registered almost 521,000 claims to copyright, accompanied by more than 825,000 deposit copies of work; transferred more than 1.1 million registered and non-registered 

works to the Library, valued at more than $41.2 million; recorded 13,016 documents 

containing more than 350,000 titles; logged more than 31 million external electronic 

transactions to its web site; responded to nearly 339,000 in-person, telephone, and 

email requests for information; and collected $227 million in royalty fees and distributed more than $191 million in royalties to copyright owners. Registration fees 

and authorized reductions from royalty receipts fund almost half of the CO. Copies 

of works received through the copyright system form the core of the Library’s immense Americana collections, which provide the primary record of American creativity. 

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which is comprised of three Copyright Royalty Judges and their staff, administers the copyright statutory license and determines the rates and terms for the purpose of (a) distributing hundreds of millions 

of dollars in royalties that are collected under various compulsory license provisions 

of the copyright law, and (b) adjusting the royalty rates of these licensing provisions. 

The CO currently provides administrative support to the CRJs in budget preparation and human resource management. 

Congressional Research Service, S&E 

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) assists all Members and committees of 

the Congress with its deliberations and legislative decisions by providing objective, 

authoritative, non-partisan, and confidential research and analysis. As a shared resource, serving the Congress exclusively, CRS experts work alongside the Congress 

throughout all stages of the legislative process and provide integrated and interdisciplinary analyses and insights in all areas of legislative activity. These services 

are provided by confidential individual policy consultations and memoranda; analytical reports; seminars; and a secure CRS web site available to the Congress. In 

2006, CRS delivered more than 933,000 research responses and services. 

Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, S&E 

The National Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS/BPH), manages a free national reading program for more than 794,000 blind and physically 

handicapped people—circulating, at no cost to users, approximately 25 million items 

in fiscal year 2006. A cooperating network of 131 regional and sub-regional (local) 

libraries distribute the machines and library materials provided by the Library of 

Congress. The U.S. Postal Service receives an appropriation to support postage-free 

mail for magazines, books, and machines which are sent directly to readers. Reading 

materials (books and magazines) and playback machines are sent to a total readership of 794,000 comprising more than 500,000 audio and braille readers registered 

individually, in addition to more than 200,000 eligible individuals located in 32,000 

institutions. 

THE LIBRARY’S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

As the Library’s budget was submitted prior to the enactment of the fiscal year 

2007 full-year continuing resolution, the fiscal year 2008 request is based on the 

total fiscal year 2006 operating level. As a result, the fiscal year 2008 budget request is unique in that it includes (1) adjustments for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal 

year 2008 mandatory pay and price level increases, (2) the resubmission of most fiscal year 2007 program increases, and (3) several new fiscal year 2008 program increases. This request covers two years of costs needed to keep the Library on schedule with its programs. 

In fiscal year 2008, the Library requests a total budget of $703.339 million 

($661.616 million in net appropriations and $41.723 million in authority to use receipts), which is an increase of $99.716 million above the fiscal year 2007 (2006) 
209 

level. The total includes $43.9 million for the construction of the Library of Congress 

Fort Meade Logistics Center, proposed for transfer to the Architect of the Capitol. 

Funding also includes $45.947 million in mandatory pay and price level increases 

and $28.118 million in program increases (excluding the $43.9 million for the Logistics Center), offset by $18.249 million in non-recurring costs. 

The requested funding supports 4,244 full-time equivalents (FTEs), a net decrease 

of 58 FTEs below the current authorized level of 4,302. 

Fiscal year 2008 funding is allocated as follows: 

—Library of Congress, S&E ($467.452 million/2,888 FTEs), which includes: —National Library ($324.294 million/2,259 FTEs); 

—National Library—Basic 

—Purchase of Library Materials (GENPAC) 

—Office of Strategic Initiatives 

—Cataloging Distribution Service —Law Library ($13.394 million/101 FTEs) 

—Management Support Services ($129.764 million/528 FTEs) 

—Copyright Office, S&E ($51.562 million/523 FTEs) 

—Congressional Research Service, S&E ($108.702 million/705 FTEs) 

—Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, S&E ($75.623 million/128 

FTEs) 

THE LIBRARY’S FUNDING PRIORITIES

Mandatory Pay and Price Level increases 

The Library is requesting an additional $45.947 million to maintain current services. This is the amount needed to support the annualization of the fiscal year 2006 

pay raise, the fiscal year 2007 pay raise and annualization in fiscal year 2008, the 

fiscal year 2008 pay raise, within-grade increases, and unavoidable inflation and 

vendor price increases for the period fiscal year 2007–2008. These funds are needed 

simply to sustain current business operations and to prevent a reduction in staff 

that would severely affect the Library’s ability to manage its programs in support 

of its mission and strategic objectives. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Library is requesting $2.005 million for one unfunded mandate: the Department of State (DOS) Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program. 

In fiscal year 2005, the DOS, mandated by the executive branch, began its 14- 

year program to finance the construction of approximately 150 embassy compounds, 

requiring increasing contributions from all agencies with an overseas presence, including the Library. The Library’s yearly assessment was $1.2 million in fiscal year 

2005 and $2.4 million in fiscal year 2006–2007. The proposed increase for fiscal year 

2008 is $2.005 million. If funding is not provided for the next phase of the program, 

the Library will have insufficient resources to operate its overseas offices. This 

would result in the curtailment—and in some cases, termination—of international 

acquisitions programs in areas that are of increasing importance to the nation 

(Brazil, Egypt, Kenya, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia). 

Major Ongoing Projects 

The Library is requesting a net total of $1.771 million for three ongoing major 

projects that are either in their last year of development or on a time-sensitive 

schedule that must be maintained if the entire project is to succeed. —Acquisitions (GENPAC/Electronic Materials).—Advances in technology have 

opened opportunities for the Library to acquire materials from parts of the 

world about which, until recently, there had been little access to primary 

sources. National interest, especially with respect to security and trade, dictates 

that we acquire emerging electronic publications and other difficult-to-find resources that document other cultures and nations. The GENPAC appropriation, 

which funds the purchase of all-important current collections materials, declined precipitously in its purchasing power during the 1990s. Consistent with 

our previous budget request for a multi-year, $4.2 million base increase to the 

GENPAC budget, the Library is requesting the next incremental adjustment of 

$2 million, which will bring the total base adjustment up to $3.3 million. Funding is needed to help keep pace with the greatly increased cost of serial and 

electronic materials, that risks eroding the comprehensiveness and value of the 

Library’s collections. 

—National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC), Culpeper, VA.—A fiveyear plan for the completion of NAVCC was included in the Library’s fiscal year 

2004 budget. Fiscal year 2008 represents the fifth year in the Library’s five-year 

cost model, which is adjusted annually to align with shifts in the construction 
210 

schedule of the Packard Humanities Institute and the Library’s occupancy 

schedule. In 2007, construction will be completed; the entire property transferred to the government; staff relocations will begin; and digital preservation 

equipment and systems will be purchased and integrated into the conservation 

facility. Funding is needed in fiscal year 2008 to continue purchasing equipment 

for the facility as well as for operations support. The fiscal year 2008 total funding of $13.617 million reflects a net decrease of $1.429 million and 5 FTEs from 

the base. —Global Legal Information Network (GLIN).—The Law Library’s GLIN is a multinational, cooperative legal database with members of the network representing countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. In fiscal year 

2003, the Congress provided the Library with a five-year appropriation to implement the technical upgrade, to digitize and incorporate retrospective legal 

material, and to engage in targeted recruitment to expand the diversity and 

number of nations contributing legal materials to the GLIN database. All goals 

have been met. To maintain this world-class legal information resource, the Library requests that $1.2 million be added to the Law Library base in fiscal year 

2008. Funding is required to continue operating GLIN and cover ongoing costs 

associated with software licensing and upgrades, system hosting, technology refreshment, content expansion, and membership recruitment. 

In addition, the Library’s fiscal year 2008 budget did not include a request for the 

National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), as 

the budget was submitted prior to the rescission of $47 million as part of the fiscal 

year 2007 continuing resolution. The Library is seeking $21.5 million to partially 

restore funding for NDIIPP. The fiscal year 2007 rescission of $47 million endangers 

another $37 million in matching funds already committed by pending partners. 

New Projects 

The Library is requesting $24.342 million for several new critical initiatives as follows: 

—Digital Talking Book Program.—A four-year, $76.4 million initiative is needed 

to implement a revolutionary change from analog to digital technology that has 

been projected and planned since 1990. In brief, the change consists of replacing 

cassette tape players with Digital Talking Book (DTB) players and introducing 

a new medium (flash cartridges) for distributing the DTBs. This request is critical, as the technology currently used will be obsolete in a few years’ time. This 

change is also being demanded by the users of the service. The new technology 

has been proposed after wide and deep consultation with users and technology 

experts. In fiscal year 2008, the Library is requesting $19.1 million, to remain 

available in the NLS base until fiscal year 2011—the last year of the implementation schedule. Funding is requested in both annual ($14.454 million) and noyear funds ($4.646 million) in fiscal year 2008, with the mix changing each succeeding fiscal year, as appropriate. 

—Copyright Records Preservation.—A six-year, $6 million initiative is needed to 

image digitally 70 million pages of pre-1978 public records that are deteriorating, jeopardizing the mandatory preservation of, and access to, these unique 

records of American creativity. In fiscal year 2008, the Library is requesting the 

first $1 million—in offsetting collections authority, which will permit the scanning of 10 million page images. 

—Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition.—The Library’s Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition in 2009 will be a centerpiece of the nationwide celebration 

to mark the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth. The Library will draw on its unparalleled Lincoln materials to focus on Lincoln’s rise to national prominence and 

the thinking and writing that underlie his career. A total of $1.442 million will 

be needed for this project in fiscal year 2008, and with multi-year (3-year) authority. Fiscal year 2008 funding will support the design and implementation 

of the exhibition and travel needed to visit other venues and/or other institutions that will be lending materials to the Library exhibition. 

—Escape Hoods.—A one-time cost of $1.189 million is needed to purchase NIOSHapproved escape hoods for approximately 6,200 non-Library staff (researchers, 

contractors, and other visitors to the Library) and 110 cabinets to store the 

hoods throughout the Library. Procuring and providing escape hoods for contractors and visitors is consistent with the policy set by the USCP for the Capitol Hill complex. 

—Custodial Services.—A total of $517,000 in contract funds is requested for custodial services support and includes funding for six contract custodial quality control inspectors and increased costs related to new space at Fort Meade (Modules 

2–4). The Library’s facilities on Capitol Hill comprises four million square feet, 
211 

with no independent inspectors monitoring its custodial contract (industry 

standards reflect at least one inspector per 500,000 square feet of facility). 

Based on industry standards, the Library would require a total of eight inspectors, though the Library is only requesting six. Library space at Fort Meade will 

increase by 83,000 square feet between fiscal year 2006–2008, increasing the 

base cost of the custodial service contract. 

—Legislative Branch-Wide Payroll Formulation Software System.—The Library is 

requesting a total of $500,000 to support a legislative branch-wide pilot program to procure and implement a payroll budget formulation software system 

that will allow a name-by-name calculation of payroll costs using a standard 

calculation methodology for all legislative branch agencies. This request is the 

result of congressional guidance to the Legislative Branch Financial Managers 

Council (LBFMC) to develop a standard methodology for formulating payroll 

costs within and across the legislative branch agencies. Since the Library has 

one of the largest staffs in the legislative branch, the LBFMC, with congressional approval, selected the Library to pilot the system, with funding for all 

legislative branch agencies to be requested in subsequent years—after testing 

and implementation are finalized at the Library. Consistent with guidance, the 

software and subsequent formulation of payroll costs will be managed by each 

agency’s central budget office to ensure consistency within each agency. 

—Library-Wide Contracts Management Support.—Currently, the Office of Contracts has a total working capacity of 22 FTEs (comprised of in-house staff and 

contractors). Based on a GSA workload analysis model that was applied to the 

Library’s fiscal year 2005 contract actions, a total of 26 FTEs is needed to support the Library’s contract workload. Since 2001, the volume and complexity of 

the Library’s contracting workload have increased significantly. The average annual dollar value of contract actions administered per contract specialist increased from $2.9 million in fiscal year 2001 to more than $13.8 million in fiscal 

year 2005. That trend is expected to become more pronounced in fiscal year 

2007 and beyond. Funding of $318,000 is requested to support the salaries and 

benefits of an additional three FTEs in the Office of Contracts for a total working capacity of 25 FTEs. The three additional FTEs will be absorbed within the 

Library’s FTE base. 

—Workforce Transformation Project.—Renewal and development of the Library’s 

workforce are essential to retrain staff with the necessary skills for the digital 

age, and to capture for the future the vast knowledge of large numbers of experienced staff who are near retirement. In fiscal year 2008, the Library will begin 

a program to enhance digital competencies, leadership skills, career development, recruitment, and other workforce counseling and services. These activities 

are particularly important for sustaining the Library’s commitment to a diverse 

workforce. Funding of $276,000 is requested to support these initiatives. 

Other Program Changes or Requests 

Library of Congress Fort Meade Logistics Center.—The Library is requesting $43.9 

million, to be transferred to the Architect of the Capitol, for the construction of the 

Library of Congress Fort Meade Logistics Center. Current deplorable life safety and 

environmental conditions at the Landover Center are unacceptable and present extremely high risk to staff and collections. The proposed Logistics Center is a 162,000 

square foot environmentally controlled facility supporting the day-to-day mission 

critical operating requirements of the Library. The new facility will consolidate storage and inventory and supply from multiple leased facilities and Library buildings 

on Capitol Hill and will also benefit from the synergy and centralized security of 

the Fort Meade master plan. Alternatives have been extensively evaluated, and all 

are more costly than the proposed construction—which will result in immediate savings of approximately $3 million per year after consolidation at Fort Meade. 

Digital Collections and Educational Curricula Program—In 2005, Congress created and passed the Library of Congress Digital Collections and Educational Curricula Act. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the Act moved the administrative and programmatic ownership of the Adventure of the American Mind program (AAM) from 

the Educational and Research Consortium to the Library. Of the $6.016 million requested in fiscal year 2008 (fiscal year 2006–2007 enacted level adjusted for mandatory pay and price level increases), $2.006 million will fund administrative support 

costs, with the balance of $4.010 million supporting grant awards. In addition, the 

Library will begin developing standards-based, field-tested curricula, using a trainthe-trainer model to create a network of partners from all parts of the country. 
212 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL—LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library’s buildings and grounds. In coordination 

with the Library, the AOC is requesting a fiscal year 2008 budget of $42.788 million 

to support life safety, deferred maintenance, and upgrades to the Library’s buildings 

on Capitol Hill. The deferment of maintenance and upgrades require projects to be 

completed concurrently, often at higher costs. Deferments and delays have also created longer lists of projects. The cost increase is compounded by inflationary pressures and by the steadily growing risks in health, safety, and security to the Library’s staff and collections. The cost of maintenance and upgrades will increase exponentially if the Library cannot stop, or at least slow down, the rate of deterioration of its buildings. 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE

The Library has proposed language to improve employment options elsewhere in 

the Federal Government for Library staff. The first provision confers competitive 

status to Library employees who have successfully completed their probationary period at the Library—the basic eligibility to be non-competitively selected to fill vacancies in the competitive service of the Federal Government. This will enable Library staff to apply for positions in the executive branch on an equal footing with 

‘‘career’’ executive branch employees. A related provision would enhance the employability of Library employees displaced because of a Reduction-in-Force (RIF) or failure to accept a transfer to an alternative work location. This provision would give 

separated staff selection priority for competitive service positions, comparable to 

that enjoyed by separated employees from other federal agencies. 

The Library also proposes new appropriation language to address the requirement 

specified in the Cooperative Acquisitions Program Revolving Fund legislation (CAP), 

Public Law 105–55, that the revolving fund receive its own audit by March 31 following the end of each fiscal year. The Library requests that the March 31 audit 

requirement be rescinded and that the CAP be subject to the same audit requirement as the Library’s other revolving funds. 

CONCLUSION

We are deeply grateful for what Congress has already created and admirably sustained. New investments will enable us to continue providing the Congress with 

comprehensive nonpartisan research, and the nation with the wonderful learning resources that digital technology is delivering to schools, libraries and homes. Appropriations for today’s Library will be investments in tomorrow’s minds, in our future 

creativity, and in America’s global leadership well into the information age. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER

Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Allard, and other Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on the Open World Leadership Center’s budget request for fiscal year 2008. The Center, whose board of trustees I 

chair, conducts the only exchange program in the U.S. legislative branch and has 

hosted 11,794 leaders from Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other post-Soviet states to date. All of us at Open World are very grateful for the continued support in the legislative branch and for congressional participation in the program and 

on our governing board. We look forward to working with you on the future of Open 

World. 

Open World has a U.S. hosting network of hundreds of local nongovernmental and 

governmental organizations and more than six thousand volunteer host families, enabling us to continue to bring large numbers of emerging young post-Soviet leaders 

to the United States. Program participants come to discuss topical issues of mutual 

interest and benefit, such as ways of containing the avian flu, developing environmentally responsible public policy, and improving educational curricula in primary 

and secondary schools. They meet with Americans who share their interests and are 

often eager to partner with them on collaborative projects. 

The following statement by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. Friot of Oklahoma, 

who hosted five prominent Russian judges for Open World in 2006, effectively captures the impact of this program on both U.S. hosts and foreign visitors: ‘‘The opportunity to learn about the judicial system of the Russian Federation made hosting 

Open World delegates one of the most enriching professional experiences I have ever 

had. Russian and American judges face similar problems, and programs like Open 
213 

1 Eurasia here means Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, 

Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. 

World help us overcome them by providing the opportunity to learn with each other 

and from each other.’’ 

In 2006, after seven years of operation, Open World assessed its accomplishments 

and completed a new strategic plan under the leadership of former U.S. Ambassador 

to Russia James F. Collins, one of our longest-serving trustees. The plan envisions 

expanding the Open World Program to all the countries of Eurasia 1 and the Baltic 

States by fiscal year 2011. Expansion programs are already under way in five new 

countries: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. One result of 

this expansion is that Open World will reach many more Muslims. Some 30 million 

Muslims live in the countries participating in Open World 2007, more than double 

the Open World 2006 figure of 14 million. The Center’s budget request of $14.4 million for fiscal year 2008 (Appendix A) re- flects an increase of $0.54 million (4.0 percent) over fiscal year 2007 funding. This 

funding will enable the Center to continue its proven mission of hosting young leaders from Russia and Ukraine; conduct programs in our five new expansion countries, in accordance with recommendations from Members of Congress and directives 

from the Board of Trustees; and respond to any requests for small-scale, preliminary 

expansion to additional countries made by the Board of Trustees in consultation 

with the Appropriations Committees. 

PROGRAM MISSION AND STRATEGIC PLAN

The Open World strategic plan, completed in 2006, adopted the following mission 

statement: 

To enhance understanding and capabilities for cooperation between the United 

States and the countries of Eurasia and the Baltic States by developing a network 

of leaders in the region who have gained significant, firsthand exposure to America’s 

democratic, accountable government and its free-market system. 

In light of this mission, Open World will continue to bring emerging leaders from 

this region to the United States, while endeavoring to foster lasting ties and ongoing 

cooperation between Open World delegates and their American hosts and professional counterparts. The program seeks to nurture civic and political environments 

where civil society develops not only from the top down, but also from the ground 

up and the periphery in. This goal is furthered by developing a network of leaders 

who regularly communicate and collaborate with fellow citizens and American peers 

on concrete projects. 

The Open World strategic plan focuses on building and strengthening a network 

of American and foreign community leaders through both enhancing existing ties 

and forming new ones. It also stresses the importance of measuring progress quantitatively by numbers of partnerships, joint projects, and ripple effects, and by tracking how they grow and strengthen. 

Open World’s core competency lies in identifying promising young leaders, matching them with capable and appropriate U.S. host organizations, and networking 

them with their American counterparts. Open World has developed close coordination with U.S. Embassies and various nominating organizations. Wherever possible, 

Open World tries to complement other U.S. government-funded programs as well as 

other initiatives in Open World countries that involve U.S. citizens. 

For example, Open World joined with the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation to help solidify relations between Omaha, Nebraska, and Artemivsk, Ukraine, which had previously been paired under a foundation program. In December 2006, community 

leaders in Omaha hosted a delegation of city administrators from Artemivsk, which 

applied to become a sister city of Omaha as a direct result of the visit. A delegation 

of Omaha city representatives (including university faculty and students) will make 

a return visit to Artemivsk in May 2007. Omahans have raised funds in the United 

States to help renovate an orphanage in Artemivsk this year; and for the first time, 

a group from the Omaha Ukrainian diaspora is visiting Artemivsk to build ties. 

West Jordan, Utah, the sister city of Votkinsk, Russia, provides another example 

of such an initiative. To help develop projects based on this sister-city tie, Open 

World made it possible for a competitively selected medical team from Votkinsk to 

visit West Jordan in September 2006 to learn more about U.S. emergency medical 

care and community health fairs. One month after returning to Votkinsk, the Open 

World delegates replicated a community health fair. They invited the mayor of West 

Jordan as well as a health team from Jordan Valley Hospital to take part in the 

event. More than 600 Votkinsk citizens attended this one-day event and learned 
214 

about Utah’s ties to Votkinsk. Sister Cities International’s Utah state coordinator 

and veteran Open World host Jennifer Andelin had this to say after the trip: ‘‘Open 

World is definitely a program that is positively impacting both Russia and Utah. 

I often refer to Open World as the ‘glue’ that holds the Utah/Russia partnerships 

together.’’ 

CALENDAR YEAR 2006 ACTIVITIES

In 2006, Open World brought 1,142 Russians and 223 Ukrainians to the United 

States for high-level professional programs in 46 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Out of these: 228 delegates studied rule of law; 279 delegates studied accountable governance; 216 delegates studied women as leaders issues; and 345 delegates studied health, social issues, the environment, and education. 

The Open World 2006 programs for Russia and Ukraine focused on overarching 

themes like accountable governance and rule of law, as well as critical challenges 

that face both countries and America as well, such as AIDS prevention and emergency preparedness. For instance, a team of Russian avian flu experts came to meet 

with their counterparts at the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 

spoke at the 2nd Bird Flu Summit in Washington, D.C. The trip initiated an ongoing dialogue between the NIH and Russian laboratories that will lead to cooperative 

projects as well as a formal cooperative partnership agreement to be signed in 

spring 2007. (On March 10, 2007, another Open World delegation of Russian infectious disease epidemiologists joined the State of North Carolina, the Scian Institute, 

and the National Peace Foundation in a ‘‘Community Preparedness Planning Template Project’’ partnership designed to help small and medium-sized communities in 

the United States and elsewhere develop emergency response plans to deal with 

pandemics.) 

In another example, four high-level government physicians from Russia involved 

in HIV/AIDS prevention, TB control, forensic medicine, and prison health care visited New Orleans in fall 2006 to learn about operations at counterpart agencies in 

Louisiana. The delegates toured and had briefings at the Orleans Parish Jail and 

the state penitentiary in St. Gabriel, took part in informative discussions with the 

state epidemiologist and the head of the state Tuberculosis Control Program, and 

visited the Jefferson Parish Forensic Center in Harvey. Staff of the Louisiana State 

University Health Science Center introduced the Russians to the center’s medical 

training and research programs and juvenile justice program. The delegates praised 

the program for giving them the opportunity to interact with Louisiana professionals who ‘‘have the same positions and work . . . on the same problems’’ as they 

do in Russia. 

Open World 2006 continued the rule of law program, which has benefited so much 

from the involvement of U.S. Supreme Court justices and many other prominent 

members of the American judiciary and has brought nearly 1,100 Russian and 

Ukrainian judges to the United States. A highlight of last year’s program was an 

exchange for five Ukrainian judges hosted by U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon 

of East St. Louis, Illinois. Not only did the Ukrainians observe the workings of the 

U.S. legal system, they also discussed what they saw with key actors in the judicial 

process. Judge Herndon arranged for them to observe him conduct several 

sentencings, after which he held a Q-and-A session that included the counsel involved in the sentencing hearings. After observing a jury trial at the Madison County (Illinois) Courthouse, the visiting judges had a ‘‘postmortem’’ with members of the 

defense’s legal team. The Ukrainians also participated in the quarterly administrative meeting for all Southern District of Illinois judges and court staff, giving them 

invaluable insights into judicial administration in the United States. And during a 

tour of the Federal Correctional Institution and Camp in Greenville, Illinois, the 

Ukrainians were able to ask questions not only of the warden but of inmates as 

well—something still not readily allowed for visitors to their own country. 

Open World 2006 also continued the focus on accountable local governance that 

had been added as a program theme in 2005. The Russians and Ukrainians who 

participated in these exchanges received practical advice from their American counterparts and onsite insights into how to make local government more open, responsive, and efficient. For example, several small-town mayors from Ukraine spent part 

of their Open World exchange visiting rural communities outside Lincoln, Nebraska, 

to see firsthand how these towns used public/private economic development projects 

to improve quality of life and retain population. Four Russian municipal executives 

hosted in Parker, Colorado, reviewed the town government’s budget and operations 

with the mayor and two of his top staff, then sat in as the proposed 2007 budget 

was presented for first reading to the Parker Town Council. Delegates from the for-
215 

merly closed nuclear city of Zheleznogorsk, Russia, met with the planning directors 

for their Tennessee sister communities of Alcoa, Maryville, and Blount County to 

brainstorm ways of making Zheleznogorsk more accessible for trade and travel. And 

in Springfield, Illinois, Ukrainian city officials interested in zoning issues met with 

the city’s zoning administrator for an interactive session complete with maps and 

blueprints. 

OPEN WORLD IN AMERICA

Open World delegates are hosted by a large and dedicated group of American citizens who live in cities, towns, and rural communities throughout the United States: 

—Since Open World’s inception in 1999, more than 6,000 U.S. families have 

hosted participants in 1,575-plus communities in all 50 states. 

—Open World’s 2006 host families lived in 227 different congressional districts. 

American hosts’ generosity toward and enthusiasm for Open World are a mainstay of the program. In 2006, interested host communities’ demand for Open World 

visitors was more than double Open World’s actual number of program participants. 

U.S. hosting organizations were prepared to host more than 2,300 Russian participants, well above our funded hosting capacity of 1,150 Russian participants. Americans’ enthusiasm for the Open World Program is reflected in their generous giving 

in 2006 of an estimated $1.6 million worth of in-kind contributions in terms of free 

accommodations and meals. 

The blossoming relationship between Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the formerly 

closed nuclear research city of Sarov, Russia, offers other examples of the dedication 

of Open World’s American hosts. In September 2006, Open World brought four delegates from Sarov to Los Alamos. As a result of the trip, a videoconference site was 

organized using equipment donated to Sarov by citizens of Los Alamos. 

Videoconferences are being used both to organize a 2007 trip to Sarov by Los Alamos firefighters and police officers to discuss how to control wildfire (a major issue 

of concern in both communities), and to make plans for six children from Los Alamos to attend a summer camp outside Sarov. 

Open World delegates have impacted American communities by sharing ideas 

with their professional counterparts, university faculty and students, governors and 

state legislators, emergency response crews, and other American citizens in a variety of settings, including group discussions, Rotary Club breakfasts, and town hall 

meetings. 

One Rotarian, Wayne R. Oquin of Houston, Texas, had this to say about the impact of Open World on him as a host: 

On a personal note, I have never been one to push the international side of Rotary. I’m recognized as a community service Rotarian. I must admit that the Open 

World Program has changed my perspective. I was very apprehensive about my role 

as an Open World coordinator for my District. It really turned out to be easy, informative and extremely rewarding to me personally. I can honestly say that my 

time with this Open World delegation has been my most enjoyable week ever spent 

as a Rotarian. 

RESULTS AND IMPACT OF PROGRAM

Open World delegates return to their countries and apply their Open World experience to improve their local communities and regions. For example, an elementary 

school principal from Tver, Russia, was hosted in November 2004 by the Paso 

Robles (California) Rotary Club. Upon her return, she instituted a set of reforms 

based on what she had seen at the Georgia Brown Elementary School in Paso 

Robles. Among other projects, she started a board of trustees that was chaired by 

the mother of one of the students at her school. The board, in turn, worked with 

the principal to add electives to the school curricula, including a course on principles 

of democracy and election legislation. As a result of these reforms, the Russian Ministry of Education awarded the school a one million ruble prize as one of the ‘‘Best 

Schools of the Year’’ for 2006. 

In another instance, a city administrator from Ulan-Ude visited Louisiana and 

was inspired to launch a campaign in support of NGOs in her region. During a 

meeting with the Louisiana Office of Family Support, she was particularly impressed by the role of nongovernmental community organizations such as Louisiana 

Eastern European Adoptive Families. Upon her return, she teamed up with the first 

deputy chairperson of her department, another Open World alumna, to promote 

NGO development in Ulan-Ude. As a result of their teamwork, on October 3, 2006, 

the City of Ulan-Ude declared 2007 ‘‘The Year of Civic Initiatives’’ and allocated 2.8 

million rubles (approximately $106,000) to be distributed among 32 local NGOs to 

organize 100 different activities and programs throughout this year. 
216 

Sometimes results take time to come to fruition. A judge from Barnaul, Russia, 

visiting Washington, D.C., in 2003 was particularly impressed by the use of information technology in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Upon her return, she started to take computer classes and, in 2005, was instrumental in instituting the use of web cameras and computerized court records in her region’s supreme court. 

In another example, the director of a Yekaterinburg refugee aid organization and 

a Native American Open World host—who first met during the director’s 2004 Open 

World visit—just partnered on a March 14 videoconference between Native American children in Oklahoma and indigenous children in Ufa-Shigiri, Russia. The videoconference, which was co-hosted by the U.S. Consulate in Yekaterinburg, is intended to be the first in a series of events that will allow these children to share 

information about their lives, cultures, and aspirations for their communities. 

SCOPE OF PROGRAM

In addition to the qualitative assessments described above, the Center also tracks 

quantitative performance measures to ensure that Open World is focusing on a geographically and professionally broad cross-section of emerging leaders who might 

not otherwise have the opportunity to visit the United States: 

—Delegates have come from all the political regions of Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania, and from 13 of Uzbekistan’s 14 political regions. 

—88 percent of Russian participants live outside Moscow and St. Petersburg. 

—More than 6,500 federal, regional, and local government officials have participated, including 157 members of parliament. 

—The average age of Open World delegates is 38. 

—93 percent of delegates are first-time visitors to the United States. 

—51 percent of delegates are women. 

OPEN WORLD 2007 AND PLANS FOR 2008

In calendar year 2007 we plan to continue bringing Russian political, civic, and 

cultural leaders, as well as Ukrainian political and civic leaders, to the United 

States. In addition, through Open World, at least 175 leaders from Georgia, 

Moldova, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan will visit the United States in 

2007, virtually all for the first time. Chicago and Atlanta welcomed the first Open 

World Georgian delegations in early March. The Chicago visitors, all regional and 

city officials, reported that one of their favorite sessions was a morning spent at the 

village hall of suburban Bellwood, where they received a comprehensive overview 

of the town government, participated in lengthy Q-and-A with the mayor and other 

Bellwood officials, and toured town departments and facilities. Open World’s first 

Moldovan delegations also arrived last month: one, a delegation of senior government and NGO officials, met with their counterparts in Washington, D.C., to explore 

ways to curb human trafficking. The other group, composed of one federal and three 

municipal officials, studied public finance with city administrators and economic experts in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina. 

Open World administrative activities in 2007 include developing annual plans for 

2007–2011 as part of the strategic planning process, and finalizing all assessment 

tools to measure program successes. Open World will explore ways to recognize 

some of our most dedicated U.S. hosts, and the Board will consider additional countries for possible inclusion in the 2008 expansion program. 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

The budget request supports hosting and other programmatic activities at a level 

of approximately 1,400 participants total. Actual allocations of hosting to individual 

countries will be determined by the Board of Trustees in consultation with the Appropriations Committees. The requested funding support is also needed to cover anticipated fiscal year 2008 pay increases and the Department of State’s obligatory 

Capital Security Cost Sharing charge for the Center’s two Foreign National Staff attached to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. 

Major categories of requested funding are: 

—Personnel Compensation and Benefits ($1.379 million) 

—Contracts ($8.075 million—awarded to U.S.-based entities) that include: 

—Coordinating the delegate nomination and vetting process 

—Obtaining visas and other travel documents 

—Arranging and paying for air travel 

—Coordinating with grantees and placing delegates 

—Providing health insurance for participants 
217 

—Grants ($4.6 million—awarded to U.S. host organizations) that include the cost 

of providing: 

—Professional programming for delegates 

—Meals outside of those provided by home hosts 

—Local transportation 

—Professional interpretation 

—Cultural activities 

—Administrative support 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2008 budget request will enable the Open World Leadership Center to continue to make major contributions to the deepening understanding of democracy, civil society, and free enterprise in a region of vital importance to the Congress and the nation. This Subcommittee’s interest and support have enabled this 

unique program to obtain gratifying results and a special status in the successor 

states of the USSR. 

I thank the Subcommittee for its continued support of the Open World Program. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2008 

Description 

Fiscal Year 2007 

Estimated Obligations 

11.1 Personnel Compensation .......................................................................................................................... $1,085,000 

12.1 Personnel Benefits .................................................................................................................................... 293,700 

21.0 Travel ........................................................................................................................................................ 97,500 

22.0 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................... 2,000 

23.0 Rent, Comm., Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 6,100 

24.0 Printing ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,100 

25.1 Other Services/Contracts .......................................................................................................................... 8,309,500 

26.0 Supplies .................................................................................................................................................... 4,100 

31.0 Equipment ................................................................................................................................................. ........................

41.0 Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,600,000 

TOTAL, Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request ............................................................................................. 14,400,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL

RESEARCH SERVICE

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2008 budget request for 

the Congressional Research Service (CRS). I come to you with great appreciation for 

the support you have given us in past years. Having worked closely alongside Congress for more than 13 years now in my capacity as Director of CRS, I know full 

well the fiscal pressures under which you must operate, and that frame your deliberations. 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

The CRS fiscal year 2008 budget request is $108,702,000. This request covers 

mandatory pay increases for CRS staff, as well as price level increases due to inflation for the goods and services we require in the course of doing our work. We are 

not asking for any funds for new initiatives or program growth and are undertaking 

all of our initiatives within current funding. 

CRS is appreciative of Congress’ continuing support. Even in these times of constrained resources we have managed to sustain our full services to the Congress, 

serving every Member and congressional committee. Our highest priority is to ensure that Congress has continued access to the nation’s best thinking on policy 

issues, and to that end we devote almost 90 percent of our budget to personnel. 

Since 1994 we have successfully increased the number of analysts within the organization from 313 to 343, and they along with our information professionals represent 

75 percent of our total staff. At the same time, the overall number of CRS staff has 

declined by about 10 percent. 

The pressures and evolving priorities of Congress drive CRS’ short- and longrange planning. We strive to strengthen our analytic capacity and the quality of our 

analysis. We evaluate a host of factors in an effort to target and improve our anal-
218 

yses, including: institutional changes within Congress; demands on Members’ time; 

turnover of Members and staff; complexity and interdependencies of policy issues 

before the Congress; need for creative new solutions to policy questions; cultural 

shifts in the United States and abroad; global integration; continuing rapid advances in technology; and growth in information sources. 

We stand in direct service to Congress. We continually review our services to improve access, streamline operations, and increase our efficiency. We are: enhancing 

our website so that you have targeted access to the analysis you need; providing our 

staff with the research tools they need to accomplish their work; protecting the safety of our staff and ensuring that, if disaster strikes, CRS’ services to the Congress 

will remain available; looking for economies within the organization and efficient 

ways of undertaking our mission; and minimizing our non-personnel costs through 

systematic assessments of each program activity and support function. 

RESEARCH AGENDA

Congress turns to CRS daily. In fiscal year 2006 we provided over 900,000 services to the Congress. These included more than 65,000 customized products and 

services such as memoranda, telephone and in-person briefings. In addition, CRS 

created over 800 new reports, bringing the total number of reports available to the 

Congress to over 5,800, all available through the CRS website. 

As in previous years, in the months before the start of the 110th Congress, our 

experts from across CRS got together, assessed events here in the United States and 

around the world, and working closely with every congressional committee, determined the issues that would most likely face this Congress. The result of this and 

ongoing work is the creation and maintenance of a robust and evolving research 

agenda framed around almost 150 policy issues. We continue to work alongside you 

as you identify and clarify policy problems, explore policy options, monitor and assess program implementation, and conduct oversight. 

CRS approaches its work with a commitment to serving the Congress and a spirit 

of collaboration, resulting in research and analyses that are creative, interdisciplinary and insightful. As Congress conducts its deliberations, CRS makes every effort 

to provide the best thinking on the problems that congressional lawmakers address. 

To meet these demands, CRS staff must have access to the best research and information resources to provide authoritative analysis whenever and however Congress 

requires assistance. Thus the Service invests in education and training for staff 

members to stay current in their respective disciplines, and ensures that staff are 

challenged and informed by interactions with colleagues in other disciplines. 

All this, of course, means nothing unless our analysts also understand the intricacies of the legislative process and remain sensitive to the competing demands on 

time that Members of Congress juggle day after day. CRS’ analysts are therefore 

educated about the workings of the Congress so that they have a command of Congress as an institution—its rules and procedures—and an understanding of Congress’ processes in enacting legislation and in conducting oversight. 

CORE VALUES

As Congress adjusts to the changes in the world and CRS realigns its services to 

meet those changes, our commitment to our core values does not waiver. CRS analysis is renowned for being confidential, objective and authoritative. These core values underscore our service to Congress and remain stable regardless of the changes 

around us. 

In today’s marketplace of ideas, we strive to outpace all others. CRS is unique 

among the legislative branch agencies and like no other think tank, government bureau, or policy organization in the world. According to the guiding principles that 

Congress set forth when it established CRS in 1914, our sole purpose is to support 

the United States Congress, serving equally both chambers and both parties on all 

issues. 

I came to this subcommittee in 1996 asking for assistance in addressing the challenge that half of CRS staff would be eligible to retire by 2006. Well, the future is 

here and thanks to the support the Congress provided for our succession planning, 

we hired one-third of our staff in the past four years. They are all enthusiastic, 

highly credentialed individuals, dedicated to public service. Our more tenured staff 

work closely with these new employees to transfer their institutional memory and 

expertise in the legislative framework. I tell all new employees that it is an honor 

to work for the Congress. But it is also a weighty responsibility. And so honoring 

and applying our core values becomes at once a reward, a challenge, an obligation. 

CRS holds confidentiality as its first core value and highest priority. When working with CRS, Congress can access information, dispute it, ask questions about it, 
219 

knowing that questions and comments are held in the strictest confidence. I am frequently told by Members of Congress that the promise of confidentiality is what 

keeps them coming back to utilize our services. Members know they can come to 

us to float an unusual idea or explore issues, and they can do so without question, 

challenge, or disclosure. 

Our second value is objectivity. Because our work is objective and non-partisan, 

we sit in a unique position. We focus all our efforts on getting you, the Congress, 

what you need, when you need it—and in a form that works for you. CRS works 

one-on-one with Members and committees to address specific questions as they 

arise. Those who choose to reference or distribute our work can do so with confidence, knowing each report we produce is objective and fair. 

As CRS provides authoritative and confidential assistance, we are vigilant about 

our ability to analyze issues without bias or unexamined assumptions. Our outstanding reputation for objective and nonpartisan analysis is hard-won by every one 

of our policy experts, each and every day. 

Finally, CRS ensures that the research and analysis it provides are authoritative. 

Rigorous research methodologies must be free of built-in bias. Every critical assumption must be presented, explained, and justified. Data anomalies must be investigated and rechecked for appropriateness and applicability. Primary resources are 

used whenever available, all statements of fact are double- or triple-checked, all 

sources are documented and appropriately caveated. We at CRS understand that 

our research and analysis must be authoritative and above reproach if it is to continue to serve as the foundation upon which Congress engages in debate. 

Such assurance is critical. For example, as Congress sought to improve preparation for and response to future catastrophes, such as a national flu pandemic, CRS 

experts assisted with appropriations legislation and oversight. When the House and 

Senate continued to confront the myriad issues stemming from the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, CRS experts analyzed flood insurance reform and the 

funding of infrastructure repairs on highways, bridges, ports, and airports. Analysts 

used mapping software to estimate the characteristics of individuals most likely affected by the storm. We examined the entire range of federal agencies’ preparedness 

and response. For example, in addition to extensive examinations of such agencies 

as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, 

CRS prepared analyses on the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs’ role in 

responding to past disasters. This provided precedents and an analytic framework 

for further consideration of disaster-related housing needs and use of Section 8 

housing vouchers. 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

In the coming years, CRS will continue to align research capacity to meet congressional needs, to improve congressional access to our services, and to develop tools 

for our research managers and staff to facilitate their work. This year we will 

launch a new authoring and publishing system that will reduce the time devoted 

to writing and publishing reports and memoranda, thus freeing up the time available to CRS analysts to undertake their research. This new tool will standardize the 

presentation format and enhance graphic capabilities. 

In a world of ever-evolving technologies and a constant need for information, CRS 

is forefront. We plan to enhance our online services—be it podcasts, webcasts, or 

interactive discussions. For example, mapping and spatial software will allow Congress to manipulate data to determine the possible implications of legislative options 

for specific populations, regions, industries or economic sectors. In addition to providing Congress with analysis, this next step would make analytic tools available 

for Congress and staff to use. Another example is a legacy series that will capture 

the knowledge and institutional memory of our experts before they retire, further 

preserving their valuable analysis for the Congress and their successors. 

CONCLUSION

I wish to thank the Congress for its continuing support for CRS. In keeping with 

the current fiscal realities, the CRS budget request for fiscal year 2008 does not 

seek additional funds to support program growth. The Service seeks your support 

for the mandatory pay increases for CRS staff and price-level increases for goods 

and services. 

These funds will allow CRS to continue serving the legislative needs of the 110th 

Congress. 
220 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYBETH PETERS, THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE

Madam Chairwoman, Senator Allard, and other members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Copyright Office’s fiscal year 2008 

budget request. 

The Copyright Office is completing its reengineering project which you have generously supported for the past seven years. In fiscal year 2008 we are returning 

$10.1 million in non-recurring funding from the Basic Fund that was used for this 

project. Renewal receipts are decreasing by $850,000. Our mandatory and price level 

request is $3.4 million, and we request a temporary $1 million increase in offsetting 

collections authority to use receipts in the no-year account to fund the Office’s 

Records Preservation Project. The net effect of these requests is a $6.6 million decrease in the Copyright Office Basic fund. In addition, we request a $5.6 million decrease in permanent net appropriations spending authority and a corresponding permanent increase in offsetting collections spending authority due to the July 1, 2006, 

fee increases that bring in more annual receipts. The net impact on the total spending authority is zero. 

The Office requests the elimination of the CARP fund since these program activities have been transferred to the Copyright Royalty Judges, an independent entity 

under the Librarian of Congress. We also request mandatories and price levels for 

the Licensing Division. 

I will discuss these requests in more detail, after I provide some brief highlights 

of the Office’s work and an overview of our accomplishments in reengineering. 

REVIEW OF COPYRIGHT OFFICE WORK

Policy and Legal Activities 

We continue to work closely with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; this 

year the focus is on ‘‘orphan works,’’ that is photographs, text and other content for 

which a user cannot identify or locate the copyright owner. At the request of Senators Leahy and Hatch, the Office conducted a year long study of the problems and 

potential solutions. Our report, delivered in January 2006, recommended a new section 514 which would allow a good faith user to proceed to use such a work following 

a reasonably diligent search to locate the copyright owner. If the copyright owner 

emerged, he would receive reasonable compensation from the user, except in one 

limited situation. Although no bill was introduced in the Senate last year, the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing on April 6, 2006, on our 

recommended solution; the Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, 

the primary drafter of the report, represented the Office. We expect a bill to be introduced in the Senate in the not to distant future, and we are hopeful that it will 

be enacted. 

The Copyright Office participated in numerous multilateral, regional, and bilateral negotiations and U.S. delegations to meetings of international organizations in 

fiscal year 2006. This included heading the U.S. delegation to the 14th and 15th sessions of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on 

Copyright and Related Rights, which considered the draft basic proposal for a treaty 

on the protection of broadcasting organizations. 

The Office also continued to assist the Justice Department in a number of important court cases related to copyright or with significant copyright implications, including cases on the copyrightability of settlement prices, the constitutionality of 

various provisions of the copyright law, refusal to register certain claims, and Supreme Court cases raising antitrust issues. 

Registration and Recordation 

During fiscal year 2006, the Copyright Office received 594,125 claims to copyright 

covering more than a million works and registered 520,906 claims, including 20,434 

registrations submitted electronically. We recorded 13,016 documents covering more 

than 350,000 titles of works. During the year, the Office transferred 1,120,791 copies of registered and nonregistered works valued at more than $41 million to the 

Library of Congress for its collections. 

Public Information and Education 

The Office logged more than 31 million external hits on key pages of its website 

during the year—a six percent increase over the previous year. In fiscal year 2006, 

the Office responded to 338,831 requests for direct reference services, and assisted 

8,886 members of the public in person, taking in 12,758 registration applications 

and 2,463 documents for recordation. The Office answered 106,141 telephone inquiries, 8,380 letter requests, and 29,795 email requests for information from the public. 
221 

In response to public requests, the Office searched 12,792 titles and prepared 832 

search reports and assisted 8,886 visitors to the Copyright Card Catalog. The Office 

published twenty issues of NewsNet, an electronic news update about the Copyright 

Office and copyright-related activities, to 6,333 subscribers. 

Licensing Activities 

The Licensing Division collected nearly $227 million in royalty payments during fiscal year 2006 and distributed royalties totaling more than $191 million. The division worked on developing options for electronic filing for cable Statements of Account to be tested in a pilot e-filing program, scheduled for fiscal year 2007. 

REENGINEERING PROGRAM

The Copyright Office has many to thank for the support we have had during the 

past seven years for our Reengineering Program initiative. We especially thank the 

Committee for the support you have given us through appropriations; we thank the 

Architect of the Capitol for their dedication to completing the facilities work on time 

and within budget; and we thank the Library’s infrastructure units, the labor organizations, and our own staff, whose support has been crucial to our success. 

Online service is at the heart of improvements coming to the Office as part of this 

major reengineering effort. The Copyright Office of the future is scheduled to arrive 

this year with the full implementation of eCO, the electronic Copyright Office, which 

combines the efficiency and cost savings of an integrated, enterprise-wide information system with the reach of the World Wide Web. The eCO system will improve 

the timeliness of our services, increase public access to copyright records, and provide better tracking of individual items in the workflow. At the same time, eCO will 

greatly enhance our ability to acquire digital works for the Library’s collections. 

This is particularly important since we expect the number of ‘‘born digital’’ works 

submitted for deposit to trend upward indefinitely. 

The Office’s implementation efforts in fiscal year 2006 continued to focus on the 

three components that support the reengineered processes: information technology, 

facilities, and organization. Because the three components are interconnected and 

the Office must provide uninterrupted customer service, the Office will implement 

all components at one time when it switches to new processes in 2007. 

Information Technology 

At that time, the Office will release eCO Service to the public who can submit 

applications, deposits, and fees electronically through a portal on the Copyright Office website. This will reduce the paperwork and the effort involved in submitting 

an application and, as a further incentive, we are proposing to offer a reduced fee 

for this online registration. A copy of the work being registered can also be uploaded 

along with the electronic application or submitted separately in hard copy according 

to the Library’s best edition regulation. In addition to reducing the burden for the 

applicant, online registration will also reduce the cost to the Copyright Office in the 

long term. For applicants who choose not to use the eCO Service, we will also put 

in place the capability to process paper applications. 

Enhanced online search capability for Copyright Office records will be implemented in 2007 for searching registrations and recordations created since 1978. The 

eCO Search feature will have the look and feel of the Library’s bibliographic record 

system. The copyright record will clearly delineate the information provided by the 

applicant and the bibliographic information taken from the deposit copy. 

During fiscal year 2008, the Office will refine the information technology processes through adjustments and reconfiguration of the software. Despite the testing 

and pilot processing that has been done and will continue, the first year of use may 

be a challenging year as the system is exercised under full load. A help desk will 

be available to staff and the public to assist them in their use of the new system. 

Organization 

On the organization front, the Copyright Office presented its reorganization package to the Library’s Office of Human Resources Services on November 20, 2006. The 

package included the plan for the reorganization and 125 new position descriptions 

that were created to align job duties with our new business processes under reengineering. The Librarian reviewed and approved the reorganization package and 

implementation will begin almost immediately in order to have staffing completed 

in time for the move back to the Madison Building. The Office must bargain any 

impact of the reorganization with the labor organizations. 

Training has already begun to provide staff with skills needed in their new positions and will intensify in the spring of 2007. For the past 16 months, examiners 

and catalogers have been cross-trained to be able to perform both duties in the new 
222 

registration specialist position. The Office hired a Training Specialist in 2006 and 

she refined the Training Plan to include methods for training 35 trainers who will 

in turn train the staff in eCO. Training in soft skills, such as effective communication and team building, was required of the entire staff involved in the reorganization. 

Facilities 

The project passed two major milestones in fiscal year 2006. First, nearly all staff 

and contractors moved to swing space locations to permit the renovation of Copyright Office space in the Madison Building. Approximately 75 percent moved to temporary swing space in Crystal City in July 2006; others moved to swing space within 

the Capitol Hill complex; and a few remained in place until the new space was 

ready for occupancy. Second, after years of planning, the Architect of the Capitol 

began the renovation of Copyright Office space in the Madison Building. The Architect of the Capitol is making great progress and remains on schedule to complete 

the renovation of Copyright Office space in the Madison Building this year. Of particular note, the new Copyright Public Record Reading Room, which houses the Office’s card catalog comprising some 30,000 individual catalog drawers in 1,234 cabinets, opened to the public on December 11th of last year. Most Office staff that remained on Capitol Hill during the renovation have already moved into their newly 

renovated space, and staff currently working in temporary office space in Crystal 

City will move back to the Madison Building beginning June 1 and ending August 

10, 2007. 

FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

Reengineering 

No new funding is needed for reengineering in fiscal year 2008. Rather, the Office 

is reducing its offsetting collections authority for reengineering by $6.1 million and 

its net appropriation authority by $4,036,000 for a total reduction of $10.1 million 

since most of the reengineering program will be completed in fiscal year 2007 except 

for the IT system, which will be completed in fiscal year 2008 with adjustments and 

reconfiguration of the software as necessary. 

Renewal Receipts 

With respect to renewal registrations, the Office is reducing its offsetting collections authority by $850,000 and reducing staff by five due to the fact that the number of renewal registrations will decrease significantly in fiscal year 2007 and remain at that level or lower from that point on. 

When renewal registration was required, the Office annually registered approximately 52,000 claims. Since the enactment of the automatic renewal provision in 

1992, the number of renewal claims has decreased each year. In fiscal year 2006, 

the Office received approximately 8,782 renewal claims bringing in fees of approximately $531,305. In fiscal year 2007, we believe that amount will drop to about 

$150,000 and continue at that level or lower in fiscal year 2008 and thereafter. 

Adjustment of Fees 

The Office requests an increase in offsetting collections spending authority of $5.6 

million that is matched by a reduction in net appropriation spending authority of 

$5.6 million due to an increase in its fees in July 2006. In accordance with § 708 

of the copyright law, the Office completed a cost study and, for services specifically 

enumerated in § 708(a)(1)–(9) (statutory fees), submitted the cost study and proposed fee schedule increase to Congress on March 1, 2006. The major change was 

the increase in the basic registration fee from $30 to $45. Congress took no action 

and the Office implemented the new fees. The new fees are projected to bring in 

an additional $5.6 million in receipts. 

On February 21, 2007, the Office submitted a second cost study, entitled ‘‘Analysis 

and Proposed Copyright Fee Adjustments,’’ to Congress. The key proposal is a lower 

fee of $35 for electronic registration. The Copyright Office plans to implement the 

use of the lower fee service on or after July 1, 2007, to coincide with its transition 

to the new, reengineered processes and the initiation of eCO Service. The lower fee 

for electronic filings has been proposed for two reasons. First, the proposed fee adjustment for basic registration filings is being adopted in anticipation of lower processing costs which will be realized once the Office has had an opportunity to fully 

integrate the new processes. Electronic filings will be processed in fewer steps than 

paper filings and thus represent a savings to the Office. Moreover, a lower fee will 

provide applicants with a strong incentive to file electronically. 
223 

The impact of electronic filing on the Office will not be known for at least one 

year. Until that time the Office will be unable to project any fee or staff adjustments. 

Copyright Records Preservation 

The Office requests $1 million in offsetting collections authority to use no-year receipts to fund the digitization of 70 million pre-1978 copyright records. The key objectives of this record digitization project are (1) disaster preparedness preservation 

of pre-1978 public records and (2) provision of online access to those public records. 

Copyright records are vital to the mission of the Library and the Copyright Office 

and they are important to the public and the copyright industries that are a significant part of the global economy. The pre-1978 records document the ownership and 

copyright status of millions of creative works. Loss of these sole-copy public records 

due to a site disaster would trigger a complex and expensive intellectual property 

ownership dilemma. 

The first stage would cost approximately $6 million over a six year period and 

would achieve the preservation goal and very basic online access. The second stage 

would add item level indexing, enhanced searching and retrieval, costing between 

$5 million and $65 million depending on the extent of fields indexed. 

CARP 

With respect to CARP, the Office is reducing its offsetting collections authority by 

$297,000 and terminating the CARP Fund. 

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairwoman, I ask you to support the fiscal year 2008 Copyright Office 

budget request for the Basic and Licensing Appropriations of $50.1 million for a permanent decrease in the Copyright appropriations of $6.6 million. Our request includes a non-recurring funding for the Records Preservation Project. 

I thank the Congress for its past support of the Copyright Office requests and for 

your consideration of this request in this challenging time of transition and 

progress. 

LIBRARY ROLE IN DYNAMIC INFORMATION AGE

Senator LANDRIEU. The vote was just called, but we have about 

10 or 15 minutes before we have to walk over, so we’ll address our 

questions, and then anything that you all want to submit for the 

record, please do. And I want to meet with you all personally, in 

some depth, about some of these issues. Because I want to go on 

record, as the Chair of this subcommittee that, I don’t believe the 

Library of Congress should be a museum for books. 

I believe it should be a leader in a dynamic information age, and 

I want to support you in that. And I realize that we’ve had quite 

a few setbacks with the continuing resolution last year. 

But we’ve got to find a path, reasonable path, forward, and I’m 

committed to help you do that. I’m not exactly sure how we’re going 

to do it, but I’m personally committed to help you figure it out. 

BOOKS FOR THE BLIND

I also want to say, since our time is short, that I’ve worked with 

the Federation of the Blind personally now for many years. I’m 

very familiar with some of their leaders that are here today. I realize that the machine that exists today is very outdated. Millions of 

visually impaired and handicapped individuals have to use this 

machine now, and the fact is that there are not many players that 

even use this kind of technology. It reminds me of what my father 

still uses to listen to music. He doesn’t even have—you know, not 

every household has an iPod. 

But we need to move up, and I want to help you with that. 

Again, we want to be careful, though, in purchasing technologies 
224 

with them changing so rapidly, that we’ll be in 2 years, stuck with 

something that’s outdated. So, I’d like to ask you more questions 

about that at a later date. 

Senator Allard, what are some of your questions? 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

EVOLVING MISSION

You know, I don’t want to see us just collecting books for the 

sake of collecting books, but I think you need to keep original, old 

editions, so that you have a good database of information. And, I 

think you can use technology to make that available for the public. 

And I know that Dr. Billington has a huge challenge in 

prioritizing everything that’s going to come into that Library, and 

how he’s going to store it, and what he’s making it available to the 

public electronically, and I sympathize with you. I know that in 

order to try and meet that challenge, you’ve been doing some strategic planning, and I want to compliment you on that effort. You’ve 

come up, I understand, with a new 5-year strategic plan, and you 

have used that to develop your 2008 budget, as I understand. 

NEW STRATEGIC PLAN

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, it’s informed by it, but we will derive the 

2009 budget from it. The 2008 budget has already been informed 

by the new plan, with a reduction, for instance, from 18 organization-centric goals of our previous plan to just five strategic goals 

that are Library-wide. So, we’re getting the value of synergy, and 

we’re deriving performance evaluations from the plan. I know that 

GPRA is an interest of yours—— 

Senator ALLARD. Here’s my question, Dr. Billington—I’d like to 

have some specific examples of items which were not included in 

the budget as a result of your strategic planning, can you provide 

us with those? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I’m sorry, I didn’t quite understand the question. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, when you set your strategic plan in 

place—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Like you said, you started with a 

list of 18 goals—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Sure. 

BUDGET AND LIBRARY-WIDE GOALS

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. And you reduced that down to five 

or so. I’d like to have an understanding of how you arrived at the 

five that you have, or however many that you have, but in order 

to get an understanding of how you arrived at it, my question is 

this—what items did you not include in your strategic plan? 

Senator LANDRIEU. And, Doctor, if you want to answer that you 

can, both of you can—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, Jo Ann Jenkins, our Chief Operating Officer—she certainly can. If you’re looking for a detailed answer for 

the record—— 

Senator ALLARD. That’s probably enough. 
225 

Dr. BILLINGTON. All I would say, in a general way, is that we removed goals that were unit-specific, rather than Library-wide. And 

therefore, in accordance with the five central strategic goals—content, customer, outreach, organization, and workforce—performance will be determined in accordance with those goals, rather than 

with the greater multiplicity of goals focused on individual organizations. 

Now, Ms. Jenkins may wish to add to something more on that, 

but we will give you a full account of exactly what was, what was 

eliminated as a result of this reduction in goals. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. With the increase in accountability, together 

with the reduction of goals. 

Senator ALLARD. And I realize that’s a complicated question, and 

you probably won’t be able to provide us in full—— 

Ms. JENKINS. We’ll be more than happy to provide more detailed 

information for the record. We have a very extensive budget process, and provide recommendations to the executive committee. We 

weed out probably 80 percent of all requests before we come to the 

Appropriations Committee to request funds. We’ll be more than 

happy to share. 

Senator ALLARD. And, like I say, I know you have a huge challenge, and I am very empathetic to—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The result was reached in a process in which everybody—including myself and Ms. Jenkins—were active participants. All levels of the Library were represented. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, that’s important. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I want to compliment you on that effort, 

and—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We’ll get you those specifics. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING

Senator ALLARD. Now, the inspector general, when he did the report on your performance-based budgeting, he stated that you’re off 

to a good start, but yet, there’s still challenges ahead that we’ve got 

to deal with, and anybody that’s worked with performance-based 

budgeting, knows that it isn’t perfect the first time you do it. It’s 

something that grows, and it’s something that you learn to work 

with as you move forward. 

I noticed that the Financial Officer disagreed with many of the 

report’s recommendations. For the record, can you provide me a detailed description of how the Library will implement those recommendations from the inspector general? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Ms. Jenkins. 

Ms. JENKINS. The inspector general and myself and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) have met on all of the recommendations that 

the inspector general reported. I believe that we have reached 

agreement on how we will implement the recommendations that 

the inspector general has put forward, from doing performancebased budgeting to how that falls into our annual performance 

planning. We have already automated for the Library the entire, 

what we call the AP3, annual program performance planning process, so it is now automated. The point that we’re trying to reach 
226 

is the new levels of documentation of dollar requests to which we 

can link specific performance indicators, and we’re trying to work 

with the financial accounting system as to how we might track 

that. I think the inspector general and CFO and myself have 

reached an agreement of how we will reach that point that we can 

all live with. 

NATIONAL DIGITAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PRESERVATION PROGRAM RESCISSION AND OTHER PRIORITIES

Senator ALLARD. Very good. And, I appreciate your initial efforts 

on that. 

Now, one more question. 

You’ve asked for $21.5 million to be included in fiscal year 2008 

for the NDIIPP, the National Digital Information Infrastructure 

and Preservation Program. With that being included, your total 

budget would increase by about 22 percent over the budget we’re 

dealing with now, that’s excluding that rescission. 

Are there lower-priority activities that you could cut from your 

budget? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. There are other things in the budget that we 

didn’t mention, because we tried to focus on several key priorities. 

But, I think projects like the Lincoln Exhibit are essential. We’ve 

been cooperating with the Commission for the Lincoln Bicentennial, and we have the basic Lincoln collection, all online, so everyone can get to it. There are other elements of the budget, I’m prepared to respond to them, but that was one I would particularly 

mention, because, like other needs, it cannot really wait. More than 

just the Library is involved. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, you know, my staff may come back to you 

on that. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, we’d be happy to—— 

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee staff may come back, and try 

to work with you on that as we kind of filter through this budget, 

so we can give you the maximum amount we can afford, and get 

your highest priorities taken care of. And I think both of us are 

very sensitive to the challenges you face. It’s an important institution in this country, but we want to come up with the best program, and so—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We appreciate that, Senator. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator LANDRIEU. We thank you very much for your testimony 

this morning, and look forward to working with you on the new initiatives that you’ve outlined. And, again, I know that you’ve got a 

very tough job, Dr. Billington, in working with professional staff to 

expand the focus of the Library in a new and emerging technological age. You’ve got a lot of demands on you, but I’ve got confidence in your leadership and look forward to working with you. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Library for response subsequent to the hearing: 
227 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING

Question. The Library’s Inspector General released a report in October on LOC’s 

efforts in performance-based budgeting. The IG found that LOC’s efforts were ‘‘a 

good start but much work remains.’’ The IG found that ‘‘the Library’s overall budget 

base is not being ‘‘scrubbed.’’ Given the enormous increase you are requesting, it is 

critical the Library look at its ‘‘base’’ resources and determine whether certain activities are not providing the outcomes we desire. What are your plans to go back 

and more carefully assess the base budget? 

Answer. The Library of Congress has fully embraced the call to implement the 

spirit of GPRA. We recently revised the Library’s Strategic Plan which engaged the 

Library’s senior leadership, including the Librarian, the Chief Operating Officer, the 

Executive Committee, and senior managers, as well as a cross-section of the Library’s subject experts. This process represented an unprecedented level of collaboration, cooperation, consultation and communication across the Library. The new 

Strategic Plan focuses on long-term strategic results with five Library-wide goals, 

replacing the previous strategic plan, which had 18 organization-specific goals. 

Since completing the new draft Strategic Plan, the Library has implemented 

strategy mapping for all Library Service/Support Units to link the draft Strategic 

Plan to our organizations’ annual program performance plans. We have also developed an automated database system for managing the annual program performance 

plan process and ensuring the strategy mapping links are retained in the annual 

plans. Finally, we are developing a Management Dashboard to track monthly 

progress in key Library infrastructure operations. The dashboard approach to managing the Library’s Strategic Plan and related goals, outcomes and performance targets will eventually be implemented Library-wide. 

The efforts detailed above represent the many significant steps the Library has 

already taken to implement the spirit of GPRA, steps that will ultimately lead to 

implementing performance-based budgeting (PBB). Although the IG report indicated 

that ‘‘much work still remains,’’ the Library has provided a plan for the next steps 

in implementing PBB, and the IG has accepted the plan. 

Implementing PBB is an iterative process, one that must be built on a solid foundation. The Library has established that foundation in our new draft Strategic Plan, 

in our Library-wide strategy mapping efforts, in our automation of the annual program performance planning process, and in our more recent efforts to use dashboards to reinforce accountability to the Strategic Plan and to demonstrating results. Other efforts will include a current Library initiative to improve workforce 

performance management. The Workforce Performance Management Initiative 

(WPMI) will ensure that workforce planning and management takes the links between the Library’s Strategic Plan and organizations’ annual performance plans and 

extends those linkages to the annual performance plans of individual employees. 

This initiative will be coordinated Library-wide, ensuring that workforce performance management is a central element in the workforce transformation process for 

the Library. 

Another PBB next step will be the Library’s effort to use the direction of the new 

Strategic Plan and the structure of the annual performance plans as the roadmap 

for formulating the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The five strategic plan goals 

will provide a framework for analyzing, prioritizing, realigning (where necessary) 

and defending both our base budget and any new and expanded requests. The annual plans will provide strategies and measurable performance targets which will 

be the basis for demonstrating results. 

The budget formulation process will require each organization to develop resource 

requirements in accordance with their annual program performance plans and to 

identify base savings to offset the new and expanded resource needs. Budget requests will be reviewed and approved (or denied) by the Library’s Operations Committee, under the direction of the Chief Operating Officer, with recommendations 

for approval by the Library’s Executive Committee and the Librarian. In short, the 

Library’s fiscal year 2009 and future budget requests will fully incorporate both the 

scrubbing of the base budget and the alignment of resource needs with the goals 

of the Library’s Strategic Plan. 

Although we are outlining future steps for implementing the spirit of GPRA at 

the Library and a more carefully mapped-out format for performance-based budgeting, the Library can provide a number of current examples of how we have been 

engaged in ongoing efforts to ‘‘scrub’’ our base budget numbers before going to Congress to request additional resources. With respect to the ‘‘enormous increase’’ we 

have requested in our fiscal year 2008 budget, we would argue that the combined 
228 

big-ticket items coming together in this one fiscal year’s (fiscal year 2008) budget 

request is the result of an unplanned and unfortunate synchronicity of competing 

program priorities. Funds requested for the Digital Talking Books request have been 

in planning, with the full knowledge of the Appropriations Committees, for almost 

17 years. The NDIIPP funding request comes as a result of the rescission of $47 

million in no-year funding that the Library was on the verge of obligating. The Logistics Center request was a scrubbed resubmission of the Library’s fiscal year 2007 

budget request. No amount of internal base-budget scrubbing would enable the Library to simply reprogram and absorb these important budget requests. 

Finally, while the Library has set as its number one priority to maintain current 

services funding levels, this funding request does represent the results of a scrubbed 

budget at many levels throughout the Library. Some examples of our internal efforts 

to analyze and reprioritize our base budgets follow: 

National Library—Basic (Library Services) 

Library Services’ internal budget development process is designed to meet its 

highest priorities in an increasingly tight fiscal climate. Library Services divisions 

submit itemized requests for all budget needs, including contracts, travel, equipment, and new hires. Funding for employees currently occupying positions are considered part of the base. Through this approach, Library Services has denied an approximate total of $28 

million in internal personal and non-personal requests for the past three fiscal 

years. They have also limited over 215 vacancy requests to internal postings; thus 

moving existing staff into positions where the need was greatest, rather than hiring 

new staff from outside the Library. As part of the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan, Library Services moved $3.65 million from personnel compensation to GenPac acquisitions to permit the purchase of 

collections now available that would otherwise be lost to the Library and the Nation. 

Some of the planned acquisitions are electronic resources that are needed to meet 

Congressional needs, such as Jane’s Information Group (definitive reference source 

on defense, geopolitics, transport and police), Science Direct (science, technology, 

and medicine full-text database), and Historical Newspapers (online versions of New 

York Times and The Washington Post). Secondly, special materials that are now in 

the hands of private collectors are coming available and the Library must purchase 

them now. Examples of such collections are the Tony Schwartz Recorded Sound Collection, a unique collection of 30 years’ worth of off-air recordings of the sounds of 

New York City, everything from street noises to campaign films and tapes, to 

speeches and press conferences; the papers and photographs of African-American 

photographer, Gordon Parks; and the Zinmann Collection of Americana, a collection 

of rare American Colonial pamphlets. 

Congressional Research Service 

CRS incurs a significant personnel cost for research analysts moving through our 

career ladder promotion plan (GS 11–GS 15) that is not requested in the fiscal year 

2008 budget. In order to fund this cost, CRS eliminated lower priority pay requirements in the amount of $155,000. 

Rather than requesting additional funding from Congress, CRS made major reductions to its Workspace Transformation Project for improving space utilization 

and providing a more efficient office layout. The desired plan would have required 

more than $1.5 million in supplemental funding, with approximately half of that 

amount needed in the first two years. 

The manpower costs for support personnel are being reduced by satisfying nearterm needs with individuals hired in positions that have NTE limits of one year or 

less. This provides the opportunity to accomplish the work while taking steps to improve efficiency and reduce future manpower requirements. Three individuals were 

hired on this basis in fiscal year 2007 and the money needed for their pay and benefits was budgeted for research analysts in fiscal year 2008. 

Law Library 

Each year the Library of Congress has attempted to identify and use savings from 

all sources within the Library’s S&E account to address an urgently needed reclassification project critical to providing public access to a significant portion of the Law 

Library’s historic collection. 

Other Library S&E 

While the Library has requested funding (including mandatory pay and price level 

increases) to maintain current services funding levels, the Library has repeatedly 

scoured its base funding in order to identify resources to fund high priority initiatives internally and without seeking additional funding from Congress. The fol-
229 

lowing are among the many examples of such scrubbing of the Library’s base budget: 

—This year the Library identified the need to perform an agency-wide supervisory 

training program for all Library managers. This program will cost the Library 

a total of $345,000, none of which has been included in the budget request. 

—Re-equipping the preservation lab in the Madison building. Equipment required 

to establish a preservation research and testing laboratory that meets requirements for a national preservation program. All upgrades of preservation lab 

have been accomplished with base funding—$2 million. 

—Purchase of shelving and shelf equipment required to help maintain the Library’s collections and to help protect against potential damage caused by improper housing of materials—$850,000. 

—Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped program purchase of spare 

parts for cassette players. Manufacturer will no longer make spare parts for 

these players. Purchase of existing spare parts will provide sufficient inventory 

for cassette players as Library transitions from analog to digital technology— 

$3.28 million. 

—Contractual service support to automate the Library’s patient management system, to include digitization of medical records—$145,000. 

—Improve the Library’s environmental and hazardous materials program to meet 

regulations and requirements on handling and disposal of hazardous waste— 

$80,000. 

—Purchase of Escape Hoods for Library staff—$737,000. 

—Human Resources contract for support for retirement benefit counseling— 

$73,000. 

—Purchase of digital video recorders to replace analog recorders in reading rooms. 

Digital video recording technology enhances security of collections and efficiency 

of staff time—$250,000. 

Finally, as part of an effort to develop an enhanced budget justification, the Library commits to identifying within the fiscal year 2009 (and future) justifications, 

those specific areas of the budget where programs and initiatives are being reduced 

in order that other higher priority programs and initiatives may be funded. 

NDIIPP

Question. Dr. Billington, I understand that restoring funds to the National Digital 

Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program is now your highest priority. 

You have asked that $21.5 million be included in fiscal year 2008 for NDIIPP. This 

would bring your total budget to $682 million—a 22 percent increase over fiscal year 

2007—excluding the 2007 rescission. Are there lower-priority activities which you 

could cut from your budget? 

What has been accomplished to date with NDIIPP? 

What would you do with the $21.5 million you are requesting? 

Answer. The accomplishments of the national program to preserve the nation’s 

digital heritage are many. 

National Digital Preservation Network.—The NDIIPP network of partners has 

grown to 67 and, with restored funding, will grow to well over 100 and include 

projects to assist the states in preserving critical state records. This national network, which was Congress’s vision for NDIIPP, supports the catalytic basis for 

NDIIPP and ensures that the sum of what is achieved is greater than the individual 

parts. The Library is also working with other federal agencies such as GPO and 

NARA and with the private sector. 

Selecting, Collecting and Preserving Content.—Approximately 230 terabytes of 

born-digital information has been saved by current partners and the Library. 

NDIIPP has worked with the Congressional Research Service and Law Library to 

identify content of particular interest to the national legislature. For example: 

—The current partners are collecting and preserving information of interest to 

Congress such as geospatial information, social science datasets, foreign news 

broadcasts, judicial proceedings and political Web sites. 

—The Library has itself collected Web sites relating to national elections, the Iraq 

war and Hurricane Katrina. 

Technical Architecture.—To enable this information to be securely saved, partners 

have identified models and standards that are flexible and reliable, yet can be used 

by other institutions. For example: 

—The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) is working with NDIIPP to test 

the reliability of third-party storage of digital materials. SDSC will host partners’ digital content and guarantee data integrity and access. This will enable 
230 

the NDIIPP partners to remotely access, manage, process, and analyze that content. 

Digital Preservation Research.—In concert with the National Science Foundation, 

the Library has developed the first digital-preservation research grants program. 

Ten university teams are: 

—Working to ensure that what is preserved today does not become inaccessible 

in the future due to format obsolescence. 

—Exploring challenging topics, such as preserving rich oceanographic data from 

hundreds of deep-sea submersible missions; automating methods to describe 

digital objects and place them in secure archival storage; testing how to preserve digital video when it is first created; preserving complex three-dimensional digital content such as engineering drawings. 

Informing the Public.—The work of NDIIPP has helped to promote a national conversation on the importance of preserving born digital content—not only for archival 

institutions but also for the general public. For example, major articles on NDIIPP 

and digital preservation have appeared in: 

—The Atlantic Monthly (September 2006) 

—The Washington Times (April 26, 2007) 

—National Public Radio’s ‘‘All Things Considered’’ interviewed Laura Campbell 

(October 2004) on NDIIPP 

—New York Times (September 2004). 

Outreach efforts have included: 

—Workshops for all 50 states and territories 

—Workshops for commercial content distributors and owners 

—Workshops for archival institutions 

—Workshops with computer scientists and technology companies to address technical challenges. 

The new NDIIPP Web site, which has been refocused to appeal to a broader public, now offers a section on ‘‘Preserving Your Digital Memories’’ at http:// 

www.digitalpreservation.gov/you/digitalmemories.html. 

The $21.5 million would ensure the future viability of NDIIPP for both current 

and future partners, by providing funding for: 

—Current partners: to continue to select, collect and preserve important born-digital content; and to continue development of a technical infrastructure to provide tools and services to support the network’s preservation activities. 

—Future partners: States Demonstration Projects will comprise four multi-state 

initiatives to develop digital archives of at-risk digital content needed as part 

of a national digital collection. The goal is to build digital repositories among 

the states and share in costs by leveraging scarce resources. 

BOOKS FOR THE BLIND

Question. GAO recently completed a review of the Library’s $75 million plan to 

convert its books for the blind to digital format. No one could disagree that the old 

cassette players are cumbersome and outdated and need to be replaced with new 

technology. However, GAO found that the Library’s planning and analysis for the 

new digital talking book was insufficient. The program is already underway, with 

books being converted to the new ‘‘flash memory’’ format. Do GAO’s findings impact 

your $19 million budget request? 

Is it too late to consider GAO’s concerns? 

What specifically will you do to incorporate GAO’s recommendations? 

Answer. The Digital Talking Books program has been carefully planned over the 

last decade. Congress has been informed throughout the process, and based on the 

plans for converting to digital technology, the last order has been placed for analog 

machines. The $19 million budget request will allow us to produce a sufficient number of new digital players to meet the first year’s needs of the users who depend 

upon this service. The full $76.4 million is required to fulfill the total requirement 

and to meet the legislative mandate of NLS. 

We are carefully considering GAO’s concerns. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services, met with Linda Koontz, head of the GAO audit team, and 

Carrie Apostolou, Senate clerk, in April to discuss the best way to proceed in light 

of the GAO briefing to the Appropriations clerks. Ms. Koontz acknowledged that the 

flash technology selected for the program is appropriate but noted that NLS has not 

adequately analyzed commercial options and different distribution systems. 

The Library’s chief concern is that the program is already in progress. The last 

order for analog machines has been placed, and without manufacturing new digital 

machines, we cannot provide equipment to everyone who needs it. 
231 

Ms. Marcum agreed that the Library will carefully analyze the broader questions 

raised by GAO, i.e., how can the new system accommodate rapidly changing technology. GAO is concerned that it is not practical today to try to design a system 

that has a long life span and believes that the commercial sector is more likely than 

government entities to incorporate technological improvements more quickly. 

GAO was also concerned that NLS assumed the existing distribution system rather than considering new methods. It is the case that NLS assumed the continuing 

existence of the network of participating libraries having an active role in the Digital Talking Books program. The Library will consider other methods of distribution, 

but it will also analyze the non-financial, non-technological aspects of having such 

a network in place to serve the blind and physically handicapped communities. 

One of the questions that has been raised consistently is the size of the user population. The Library is conducting the necessary research to provide a definitive answer. The Library is also working with experts to predict the likely changes in the 

user population over the next several years. 

These analyses will be carried out as quickly as possible, but they must not impede the ongoing program of manufacturing new digital players to meet immediate 

and critical needs of our users. Blind and physically handicapped individuals have 

been eagerly awaiting this new technology, and we cannot slow progress. 

CRS DOCUMENTS ON ‘‘GALLERY WATCH’’ 

Question. CRS does not make its documents available to the public—an issue 

some members have had concerns with. Yet a private organization—‘‘Gallery 

Watch’’—has been able to retrieve CRS reports and make them available to their 

subscribers. Please explain how these taxpayer-funded reports end up being sold 

through Gallery Watch and whether you are concerned about it. 

Answer. Availability of CRS Products to the Public.—As set forth in the Legislative Reorganization Acts, CRS was established as a shared Legislative Branch resource, serving all Members and committees with authoritative, objective, and nonpartisan expertise across the full range of legislative policy issues. It does so in a 

confidential relationship—a congressional expectation that is clear not only from the 

legislative history of its creation, but also from annual statutory restrictions placed 

on publication of its work. The prohibition on publication of CRS products without 

oversight committee approval has appeared in the annual appropriations acts for 

the Legislative Branch for more than fifty years. This provision is intended to preserve the role of CRS as a confidential resource solely available to the Congress. The 

appropriations acts, supplemented by congressional guidance that CRS has received 

over the years and supported by judicial opinions, leaves to the Members and committees the decision whether, on a selective basis, to place CRS products in the public domain. Members have long made CRS products available to interested persons 

either directly, by inclusion in congressional publications, or more recently through 

their office or committee web sites. 

Wholesale public dissemination raises several policy, legal, and institutional concerns. Principle among these is the danger of placing CRS, a support agency, in an 

intermediate position between Members and their constituents instead of preserving 

the direct relationship between constituents and their elected representatives. This 

threatens the dialog on policy issues between Members and those they represent 

that was envisioned by the Constitution. Further, there is a significant risk that 

wide publication could over time affect the mission and congressional focus of the 

Service, resulting in products being written with a large public audience in mind 

and no longer focused solely on congressional needs. Wholesale dissemination would 

inevitably generate a significant number of comments, questions, and concerns from 

the public regarding content. In addition to placing a burden on congressional offices, responding to such correspondence would require CRS to shift significant resources away from direct service to the Congress. 

There is also a very real concern that the current judicial and administrative perception of CRS as adjunct congressional staff might be altered by congressional authorization of systematic release of CRS products. Such action might put at risk 

speech or debate protections critical to the maintenance of confidentiality. The 

Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution has been interpreted to grant broad 

immunity to Members and their aides when activity occurs in the performance of 

‘‘legislative acts.’’ Widespread dissemination of products to the general public would 

likely be viewed by the courts as an exercise of Congress’ representational or informing function for which speech or debate immunity would not be available. Of 

major concern has been the extent to which a policy permitting significant public 

dissemination of CRS products might render the protection that the Service currently enjoys under the umbrella of this constitutional protection of Members inap-
232 

plicable to communications with CRS. Stated simply, if the Service were to become 

generally known to frequently distribute products directly to the general public, it 

might lose these constitutional protections regarding even its confidential work, 

doing irreparable harm to its working relationship with congressional clients. 

A frequent lament of proponents of public access to CRS work is that taxpayers 

fund CRS and therefore deserve to have access to its products. This is an effective 

‘‘sound bite’’, but the reality is that Congress appropriates funds for CRS to ensure 

the most effective research and analytical support for its legislative activities. Just 

as with Member and committee office staff, Congress’ confidential relationship with 

CRS is critical to that support. It is in this way that Congress and the American 

taxpayer get the most for their investment. 

GalleryWatch.—CRS does not know how GalleryWatch (which is in partnership 

with Penny Hill Press) obtains its reports. Over the years the Service has made efforts to determine whether the source of CRS products for outside parties is internal 

to the organization or elsewhere in the congressional community. Whenever CRS 

has done so (on one occasion at the request of an oversight committee and on another at its own initiative, and with the help of the Library’s Office of the Inspector 

General), the Service has been assured that there was no evidence of improper activities by its own or other Library employees. CRS also has found no basis for concern that its electronic systems might have been compromised and that access to 

its products has been gained through intrusion into CRS or library systems that are 

well protected by firewalls. As a result of these efforts, CRS has concluded that it 

is likely, though not certain, that the source is a person or persons with access to 

the CapNet and the CRS Web Site, who thereby is able to download products and 

convey them to a third party (e.g., GalleryWatch). The source could therefore work 

in any congressional office or for one of the Legislative Branch sister agencies—i.e., 

anyone with access to the CRS Website. 

CRS products are not copyrighted, and are not in the public domain unless and 

until released by a Member or his/her staff. Any effort to curtail or punish an identified congressional source of the report’s dissemination would likely require proof 

that not only were the products provided, but also evidence of additional factors 

such as receiving payment for the service, unlawful use of government equipment, 

use of official time, violation of ethics rules, etc. 

As to the comprehensiveness of the GalleryWatch inventory, it appears that they 

have a regular source that provides reasonably timely copies of our reports. There 

are gaps however, and some reports do not reflect the most recent updating. CRS 

continues to have concerns regarding this phenomenon, but it believes that even 

though many of its reports are made available in this way, it is still in the interest 

of the Congress to preserve the direct communication between Members and their 

constituents regarding their policy deliberations and positions. The Service also believes that it is important to preserve an enforceable policy of confidentiality and 

the role of CRS experts as adjunct staff. 

CRS EARMARK REPORTING POLICY

Question. Recently CRS changed its policy with regard to reporting on earmarks. 

Can you explain what the policy is and why it was changed? 

Answer. On February 22, 2007, Director Mulhollan issued a new policy statement 

explaining why CRS will no longer identify earmarks for individual programs, activities, entities, or individuals. It also stated that, at the request of Congress, CRS 

can provide information on the allocation or distribution of funds for programs and 

activities where the allocation or distribution is clear from the public documents, 

such as the Appropriations Committee reports or the Administration’s budget justifications. CRS also will continue to conduct research in the Legislative Information 

System and other automated systems to identify where funding is specified for particular entities noting limitations of this methodology. 

Recent congressional and executive actions make it unnecessary and impractical 

for CRS to attempt to identify earmarks in appropriations or other laws. In January 

2007, the House, Senate, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) took actions 

to define, compile, and disclose comprehensive information on earmarks. Specifically, the House agreed to a rules change (H. Res. 6, §404); the Senate passed a 

bill including rules changes, which has been sent to the House (S. 1, §103); and 

OMB issued a memorandum for the heads of departments and agencies. CRS determined that these developments made obsolete their research using definitions and 

methodologies different than those contained in the legislation and OMB memorandum. Additionally, it is not possible for CRS to conduct research on earmarks 

using the definitions set out by the House, Senate, and OMB. For instance, the 

House and Senate definition of earmark is (in part) that it is a provision or report 
233 

language included primarily at the request of a Member, a criterion of which CRS 

would not have knowledge. 

When Congress has determined to use committees or other sub-entities in enforcement of its rules, it has clearly defined their roles (e.g., the two ethics committees, 

or an impeachment investigatory entity). The congressional rulemaking process is 

enshrined in the Constitution; Article I, sec. 5, empowers each House to ‘‘determine 

the rules of its proceedings.’’ The courts have held that Congress is the arbiter of 

the scope and interpretation of its own rules and the exercise of its rulemaking authority is insulated to a large degree from judicial review and other outside interference. Separation of powers animates this balance but it also serves to underscore 

the plenary nature of congressional rules in ordering the internal operations of Congress, its Members and subunits. The House rule and the Senate proposed rule (contained in S. 1) governing earmarks, vest the responsibilities in the committees and 

subcommittees. It would not be appropriate for CRS—an entity of the Congress that 

serves as its adjunct staff—to embark on work that would duplicate the responsibilities described in the rules and, even worse, potentially cause confusion in an area 

in which the body is seeking clarity. 

There is another aspect of earmark research that was considered in establishing 

this new policy. Earmarks are being defined by both Houses as provisions that are 

requested by specific Members. The reports required of the requesting Member and 

the committees include identification of the Member and related financial interests 

in the project or activity of the Member and his or her family. Thus, each earmark 

is linked to the Member requesting it, and the rules place certain obligations on 

that Member which become part of the public record. CRS is prohibited by a longstanding direction of the Joint Committee on the Library from doing research concerning a Member at the behest of another Member. We studiously avoid being 

placed in a position of collecting information on specific Members or their activities, 

even basic reference information. While we do at times assist the ethics committees 

or special investigatory committees with questions of law and the applicability of 

rules of conduct, our work is carefully generalized and is prepared in a way that 

is not linked to individual Members. 

TEACHING WITH PRIMARY SOURCES

Question. In 2006, permanent authorization was included in the legislative branch 

appropriations bill for the ‘‘Teaching with Primary Sources’’ program—formerly 

known as Adventure of the American Mind. This program has been very successful 

in Colorado, first at Metro State University and now at Northern Colorado University, teaching educators how to use the Library of Congress’ online material in their 

curriculum. Can you describe how you plan to change the program, to broaden its 

reach to more teachers nationwide? 

Answer. The Library seeks to broaden the Teaching with Primary Sources (TPS) 

program by piloting a regional-center model to award a large number of small 

grants to new partners in neighboring states, encouraging geographic growth of the 

program. These regional centers will be located at Metro State University, at Illinois 

State University, at Waynesburg College in Pennsylvania, and at a location to be 

determined in the South. 

Additionally, an exportable TPS program curriculum will be published this fall 

and available for download on the TPS Web site, allowing all interested educational 

institutions to implement the program. An online version of the TPS course will be 

piloted this summer and available to educators nationwide this fall. 

LOGISTICS CENTER

Question. The Library is requesting $43.9 million for a logistics facility. This 

project was included in last year’s AOC budget request but did not get funded. During last year’s hearing, we raised questions about the high cost of the proposed facility. We understand that costs have been reduced, but most of the reductions are due 

to cost deferrals. Does the Library have any further plans to look at the total cost 

of the proposed logistics center? 

Answer. At the request of the Senate Appropriations Clerk during the fiscal year 

2007 budget cycle and in response to concerns expressed by the Library’s Inspector 

General, the Library worked closely with the Architect of the Capitol to review and 

reduce where possible the Library’s program and facility requirements, construction 

costs, and AOC markup costs. Reductions of $12.2 million are reflected in the $43.9 

million fiscal year 2008 budget request. A recap of actual cost reductions and deferrals appears below. 

Looking for ways to further reduce the total project cost in fiscal year 2008, the 

Library and the AOC have again reviewed the construction cost estimate, contin-
234 

gencies, and markup to ensure all possible savings have been identified. To this end, 

the AOC has agreed to consider a construction management plan that utilizes AOC 

staff rather than outsourcing. The Library is confident the AOC can successfully 

execute the project with in-house staff, and cites recent and sustained success in 

construction of Library projects at Fort Meade, NAVCC and the Copyright Office 

renovation project on Capitol Hill as evidence thereof. 

Recap of actual cost reductions and deferrals captured in the fiscal year 2007 

budget cycle: 

—LOC program reductions of $3 million include elimination of a water leak detection system, elimination of COOP space fit-out, and removal of furnishings, folding partitions and appliances. 

—AOC markup reductions of $2.4 million were achieved by restructuring some aspects of project oversight. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reduced their fee 

for construction management by accepting a flat fee rather than a percentage 

of construction cost, saving $825,474. The AOC plans to hire two temporary employees for project management rather than outsourcing this service, saving 

$1,605,563. The AOC has agreed to consider all possible savings that could be 

realized using in-house staff rather than outsourcing. As outlined above, we are 

confident the AOC can successfully execute the project using internal resources. 

—Eliminating shelving from the contract for construction reduces initial cost by 

$6.81 million and results in cost reductions of $430,000. Savings are realized 

by purchasing shelving in fiscal year 2010 under a separate AOC contract—outside of the contract for construction—resulting in cost deferral of $6.38 million 

(includes cost escalation to fiscal year 2010). 

—The $43.9 million fiscal year 2008 budget request reflects $12.2 million in LOC 

and AOC reductions, plus an amount added for cost escalation resulting from 

delay. 

SPACE UTILIZATION

Question. Three years ago, the Library’s Inspector General recommended there be 

an evaluation of the space utilization in reading rooms. Today this evaluation still 

has not been completed. What progress has the Library made so far in addressing 

the recommendations in that IG report? What are the Library’s milestones for completing this evaluation and making decisions on better utilizing reading room space? 

Answer. In March 2004, the Library of Congress’ Office of the Inspector General 

issued Final Audit Report No. 2003–PA–104, Reading Room Space Allocations 

Should be Re-evaluated. To produce the report, the IG staff conducted a careful 

audit of floor space considerations in the Library’s 23 reading rooms, 16 of which 

are under the jurisdiction of Library Services. They noted a significant decline in 

the numbers of patrons visiting the reading rooms since 1993 and as a result, concluded that an underutilization of floor space may have resulted from this decline. 

However, a lack of consistent and useful statistical data collected by the Library 

made it difficult to reach definitive conclusions and make strong recommendations 

as to the potential reallocation of reading room floor space—based on costs, benefits, 

and other considerations—to offices and collections storage. 

The Report’s first general recommendation was: obtain more accurate and useful 

reading room usage data. As a result, on January 3, 2006, all Library Services reading rooms instituted a similar method to measure utilization, resulting in the accumulation of consistent data. All readers are requested to sign in using a daily register kept at the entry of all reading rooms. The register records the patron’s name, 

the time and date of entry, and in many cases his/her research subject. The number 

of readers accessing the collections through the various reading rooms is now based 

strictly on the number of daily registrants; hourly counts are no longer made, nor 

are directional queries tabulated. All divisions report quarterly statistics related to 

reading room use in an accurate, consistent, and useful manner. Management is 

now in a position to compare statistics fairly and to make informed decisions as to 

resource allocation. 

The second general recommendation was: analyze reading room requirements. In 

the 2004 report, the auditors stated that (a) reading room space should be used 

more efficiently, and (b) Saturday hours should be reconsidered. Efficiency is an essential goal in our public service of the Library’s collections—the largest repository 

of recorded knowledge in the widest variety of languages and formats in human history. Library Services’ 16 reading rooms serve the Library’s general, area studies, 

and special format collections—some 129.5 million items (excluding the Law Library). As points of access to these vast and disparate collections, the reading rooms 

are complex organizations of human and material resources, not measurable only 

in terms of floor space. 
235 

Each individual reading room—for example, the Geography and Map and the 

Local History and Genealogy rooms—not only serves research materials specific to 

a subject or a format, but also, through a dedicated staff of scholarly experts, provides in-depth reference services to patrons. Since the Library collects and makes 

accessible information resources in some 470 ancient and modern languages, the reference and subject specialists of the four international area studies divisions speak, 

read, and provide assistance in a wide variety of languages. In the African and Middle Eastern Division reading room, recognized as a major world resource center for 

information on Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, multilingual staff members serve materials from 78 countries recorded in some 35 different languages. Their colleagues in the Asian Division reading room serve textual 

materials in some 100 languages. 

Moreover, a majority of the individual reading rooms are deliberately co-located 

with the collections they serve, not only to ensure efficiency of public service, but 

also to provide maximum security for Gold and Platinum-level collections. For example, the Prints and Photographs Division has custody of pictorial materials with a 

value of $2.2 billion. Its collections storage areas are highly secured and reference 

staff in the adjacent reading room is carefully trained in format-specific, safe handling techniques, and also in observing patrons to ensure items are not damaged 

through use or lost through theft. The same conditions of public service efficiency 

and collections security apply equally to the Music, Manuscript, Map, and Rare 

Book division reading rooms. The Main Reading Room in the Jefferson Building and 

the Science and Business Reading Room in the Adams Building do not serve secured, high value special collections. Instead, they are the access points for the general collections. 

In recent years, a decline in on-site readership has been experienced by all research libraries. In the digital age, much information (not all of it accurate or authentic) can be easily obtained via the Internet. However, only a tiny fraction of the 

Library’s collections have been digitized. For example, some 11 million digital images of primary source documents (i.e., photographs, manuscript pages, maps) are 

available online, but only 2,000 of the Library’s 29 million books have been scanned 

so that their full text can be read remotely. To gain full access to the nation’s strategic reserve of recorded knowledge, readers must still come to Congress’ library and 

to its various and specialized reading rooms. To make those available resources 

more widely known and attractive to the American people, the Library in general— 

and in particular the divisions of the Collections and Services Directorate—must increase public outreach. 

As a destination, the Library of Congress will be transformed once the tunnel 

from the Capitol Visitor Center is opened. The number of visitors is estimated to 

double to 2.8 million. New exhibits and educational experiences in the Jefferson 

Building will greatly expand the public’s knowledge of the Library’s magnificent resources. With the inauguration of the New Visitor Experience (NVE) in 2008, we 

intend to offer scheduled tours of the Jefferson Building reading rooms to make people aware of the Library’s unsurpassed collections and reference services. This will 

likely have a direct impact in augmenting the number of readers, but we will need 

to verify such an increase through statistical analysis. The NVE will provide new 

ways to assess and optimize reading room space. 

Nonetheless, Library Services has already studied ways to make more efficient 

use of existing reading room space throughout the Library. However, we recognize 

the reprogramming of specialized spaces to new programmatic uses—including the 

installation of wireless technology to enable patrons to access Internet-based information resources such as electronic databases—will be a highly complicated and expensive task. Large collections will have to be shifted within a stack environment 

that is already overcrowded. But plans are now underway to enlarge the Performing 

Arts Reading Room—to date, serving Music Division collections—to incorporate 

service of the motion picture and recorded sound collections of the Motion Picture, 

Broadcasting & Recorded Sound Division, whose staff is presently being relocated 

to the Library of Congress’ Packard Campus (NAVCC) in Culpeper, Virginia. Options to consolidate some separate reading rooms into the Main Reading Room are 

also being explored, as is the possibility of creating a centralized service point for 

all distributed microform collections. However, given the overriding need to provide 

efficient and secure service of the Library’s disparate collections, and specialized and 

multilingual reference assistance, there will always be a requirement to have numerous reading rooms. 

One of the recommendations of the Final Audit Report was to develop a decision 

model for determining reading room, as well as office and collections storage, space 

requirements. However, Library Services decided to continue to use existing pragmatic decision models for determining such requirements. Determining the efficient 
236 

use of all Library spaces, both on-site and off, will soon be enhanced by the introduction of a new, electronic planning tool—a Web-based Computer Assisted Facility 

Management (CAFM) program—now being populated with data and tested by Facility Design & Construction, Facility Services, Integrated Support Services. 

The single most important milestone for completing an evaluation of reading room 

space is the effect on the Library’s programs of the NVE, due to open in the Jefferson Building in 2008. With the increase in visitors and an expanded awareness of 

the Library’s research resources, we anticipate a rise in readership and need to at 

least maintain current levels of service in the reading rooms. At the same time, 

there may be an institutional demand for more existing spaces to be programmed 

for exhibits. This will necessitate re-evaluating the use of present reading rooms. 

Square footage is but one of a complex of resources and requirements to ensure effective service in a reading room. Nonetheless, it is a primary consideration for Library Services as we continually adjust our collections and public service in an environment of physical, societal and technological change. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator LANDRIEU. Meeting recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 10:49 a.m., Thursday, May 3, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado: 

Opening Statement of ...................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statements of ................................................................................. 27, 130 

Questions Submitted by............................................................................... 125, 227 

Statements of.................................................................................................. 80, 130 

Ayers, Stephen, Acting Architect of the Capitol, Architect of the Capitol .......... 1 

Opening Statement of ...................................................................................... 2 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 6 

Billington, Dr. James H., Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress ............... 203 

Opening Statement of ...................................................................................... 203 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 206 

Camens, Barbara, Member, Board of Directors, Office of Compliance ............... 52 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 57 

Chrisler, Tamara E., Acting Executive Director, Office of Compliance .............. 52 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 54 

Doby, Chris, Financial Clerk, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Senate .................... 129 

Dwyer, Sheila, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Senate ........................................................................................................... 129 

Erickson, Hon. Nancy, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 129 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 133 

Eveleth, Peter A., General Counsel, Office of Compliance ................................... 52 

Gainer, Hon. Terrance W., Senate Sergeant at Arms; Chairman, U.S. Capitol 

Police Board, Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate ........................ 79 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 84 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 82 

Hoecker, Carl, Inspector General, Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 79 

Jenkins, Jo Ann, Chief Operating Officer, Library of Congress .......................... 203 

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana: 

Opening Statements of ...................................................................................... 1, 28 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................... 22, 72 

Statements of......................................................................................... 79, 129, 203 

Morse, Phillip D., Chief, United States Capitol Police ......................................... 105 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 106 

Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service, Library of 

Congress, Prepared Statement of ....................................................................... 217 

Nichols, Dan, Assistant Chief, United States Capitol Police ............................... 105 

Orszag, Peter R., Director, Congressional Budget Office ..................................... 49 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 50 

Peters, Marybeth, the Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress, Prepared Statement of ....................................................................... 220 
Page

ii 

Turri, William H., Acting Public Printer, Government Printing Office .............. 43 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 44 

Walker, Hon. David M., Comptroller General of the United States, Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 27 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 30 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 72 

Willison, Drew, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, 

U.S. Senate ........................................................................................................... 79 
(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

Page 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Additional: 

Committee Questions ....................................................................................... 22 

Funding ............................................................................................................. 9 

Annual Operating Budget Request ........................................................................ 3 

Budget Increases and Project Delays ..................................................................... 2 

Capitol: 

Complex Master Plan ....................................................................................... 4 

Follow Up ................................................................................................... 19 

Review Process .......................................................................................... 12 

Improvement Prioritization ............................................................................. 19 

Police Construction Request ............................................................................ 12 

Power Plant ....................................................................................................... 17 

Visitor Center: 

Governance ................................................................................................ 10 

Management Team .................................................................................... 5 

Operations .................................................................................................. 5 

Tour ............................................................................................................ 1 

Community Group Relationships ........................................................................... 18 

Diverse Management ............................................................................................... 22 

East Front Rotunda Level ....................................................................................... 5 

Exhibition Hall ......................................................................................................... 5 

Fire Alarms: 

And HVAC Systems ......................................................................................... 10 

System Differentiation ..................................................................................... 10 

Fort Meade Logistics: 

Center ................................................................................................................ 12 

Warehouse ......................................................................................................... 20 

Government Accountability Office: 

Recommendations ............................................................................................. 17 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15 

Information Technology Projects ............................................................................ 21 

Legislative Branch Compliance .............................................................................. 13 

Library of Congress Tunnel .................................................................................... 11 

Management Controls and Accountability ............................................................ 21 

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................... 22 

Operations Management ......................................................................................... 14 

Performance: 

Management ..................................................................................................... 2 

Standards .......................................................................................................... 18 

Performance-based Budget ..................................................................................... 16 

Power Plant Operations Expenses ......................................................................... 18 

Project Management ................................................................................................ 16 

Schedule Adjustments ............................................................................................. 4 

Scheduling Delays ................................................................................................... 15 

Tunnel Condition Assessment ................................................................................ 15 

Utility Tunnels ......................................................................................................... 14 

Visitor Traffic Flow .................................................................................................. 11 

West Refrigeration Plant ........................................................................................ 23 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Healthcare ................................................................................................................ 49 
Page

iv 

Healthcare—Continued 

Costs .................................................................................................................. 67 

Operating Under the Continuing Resolution ........................................................ 69 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 71 

Coordination of Federal, State, and Local Governments ..................................... 68 

GAO: 

Fiscal Year 2008: 

Budget Request ......................................................................................... 29 

Request to Support the Congress ............................................................. 39 

Operations Under the Continuing Resolution ................................................ 76 

Supplemental .................................................................................................... 77 

Technology Assessment .................................................................................... 75 

Hiring in a Competitive Job Market ...................................................................... 60 

Human Capital Issues ............................................................................................. 72 

Implementing a Technology Assessment at the Government Accountability 

Office ..................................................................................................................... 61 

Justification for Increased Funding in the Government Accountability Office .. 58 

Key Efforts to Support the Congress ..................................................................... 33 

Linking Resources to Results ................................................................................. 59 

Market-Based Compensation at the Government Accountability Office ............. 60 

Need for Increased Funding ................................................................................... 58 

Outcomes of Our Work and the Road Ahead ........................................................ 37 

Performance, Results, and Plans ............................................................................ 35 

Proposed Repeal and Modification of GAO Reporting Requirements ................. 62 

Proposed Transfer of Comptroller General Authorities ........................................ 63 

Rebuilding Government Accountability Office Over the Next 6 Years ............... 30 

Relevance of Existing Mandates ............................................................................. 62 

Staffing ..................................................................................................................... 72 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Appropriations Request ........................................................................................... 44 

Federal Depository Library Program ..................................................................... 67 

Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations Request ............................................................. 46 

Government Printing Office .................................................................................... 44 

Finances ............................................................................................................ 64 

Passports .................................................................................................................. 65 

Preparing for a Digital Future ............................................................................... 45 

Production Facility .................................................................................................. 66 

Results of 2006 ........................................................................................................ 43, 45 

Special Documents ................................................................................................... 65 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Acquisitions .............................................................................................................. 204 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 226 

Architect of the Capitol—Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds .............. 212 

Books for the Blind ............................................................................................. 223, 230 

Budget and Library-wide goals ............................................................................... 224 

Calendar Year 2006 Activities ................................................................................ 214 

Core Values .............................................................................................................. 218 

CRS: 

Documents on ‘‘Gallery Watch’’ ....................................................................... 231 

Earmark Reporting Policy ............................................................................... 232 

Digital Talking Books .............................................................................................. 204 

Evolving Mission ...................................................................................................... 224 

Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request ............................................................. 216, 217, 222 

Library Role in Dynamic Information Age ............................................................ 223 

Logistics Center ....................................................................................................... 233 

At Fort Meade ................................................................................................... 204 

Management Initiatives .......................................................................................... 219 

National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program ........... 229 

And Other Priorities ......................................................................................... 226 

Rescission .......................................................................................................... 204 

New Strategic Plan .................................................................................................. 224 

Open World: 

In America ......................................................................................................... 215 
Page

v 

Open World—Continued 

Leadership Center ............................................................................................ 212 

2007 and Plans for 2008 .................................................................................. 216 

Performance-based Budgeting............................................................................ 225, 227 

Program Mission and Strategic Plan ..................................................................... 213 

Proposed Changes to Legislative Language .......................................................... 212 

Reengineering Program ........................................................................................... 221 

Research Agenda ..................................................................................................... 218 

Results and Impact of Program .............................................................................. 215 

Review of Copyright Office Work ........................................................................... 220 

Scope of Program ..................................................................................................... 216 

Space Utilization ...................................................................................................... 234 

Teaching With Primary Sources ............................................................................. 233 

The Library and Its Programs ................................................................................ 206 

The Library’s: 

Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request ................................................................... 208 

Funding Priorities ............................................................................................ 209 

Working With Partners ........................................................................................... 205 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

Additional Full-time Equivalent Positions ............................................................ 53 

Dispute Resolution ................................................................................................... 56 

Education and Outreach ......................................................................................... 55 

Fire Alarm Testing in the Capitol Visitor Center ................................................. 70 

Management Support .............................................................................................. 56 

Monitoring Abatement of Most Serious Hazards .................................................. 53 

Occupational Safety and Health ............................................................................. 54 

Office of Compliance: 

As Resource to Legislative Branch .................................................................. 52 

Strategic Plan Guides Budget Request ........................................................... 52 

Workload Due to Capitol Visitor Center ................................................................ 70 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 125 

Chief Morse’s Departmental Vision ....................................................................... 115 

Civilian Positions in Office of Financial Management ......................................... 117 

Comparison of Starting Salaries Between USCP and Local Jurisdictions ......... 123 

Coordinating With Surrounding Local Police Departments ................................. 119 

Departmental Accountability .................................................................................. 112 

Financial Management ............................................................................................ 126 

Government Accountability Office Report Recommendations .............................. 112 

Library of Congress Police Merger ......................................................................... 121 

Managing Visitors to the U.S. Capitol ................................................................... 117 

New Civilian Positions ............................................................................................ 116 

Staffing and Overtime ............................................................................................. 120 

Sworn Staffing ......................................................................................................... 125 

Tunnel Access .......................................................................................................... 118 

U.S. SENATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Administrative Offices ............................................................................................. 161 

Budget Request ........................................................................................................ 131 

Capitol Visitor Center ............................................................................................. 135 

Continuity of Operations and Emergency Preparedness Planning ..................... 136 

Crosstraining ............................................................................................................ 201 

Curator ..................................................................................................................... 132 

Disbursing Office ..................................................................................................... 133 

Financial Operations: Disbursing Office ................................................................ 146 

Implementing Mandated Systems .......................................................................... 134 

Legislative: 

Department ....................................................................................................... 131 

Information System (LIS) Project ................................................................... 193 

Offices ................................................................................................................ 136 

Merit Increases ........................................................................................................ 200 

Parliamentarian ....................................................................................................... 132 
Page

vi 

Presenting the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request ................................................. 133 

Primary Goals .......................................................................................................... 195 

Senate: 

Employment Study ........................................................................................... 196 

Historian ........................................................................................................... 132 

Stationery Room ...................................................................................................... 132 

Student Loan Reimbursement Program ................................................................ 199 

Webster ..................................................................................................................... 200 

SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

Comparison of United States Capitol Police Salaries to Local Jurisdictions ..... 122 

Coordinating With Surrounding Local Police Departments ................................. 119 

Impact of the Capitol Visitor Center Delay ........................................................... 111 

Information Technology—A Strategy for Security and Customer Service .......... 90 

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 84 

Operations and Support: Consistently Delivering Excellent Service .................. 95 

Priorities of the Inspector General ......................................................................... 115 

Risk and Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................... 111 

Role of Former Metropolitan Police Chief Ramsey ............................................... 114 

Security and Preparedness: Protecting the Senate and Planning for the Unknown .................................................................................................................... 85 

Security: 

In the Capitol Complex .................................................................................... 113 

On the Capitol Campus .................................................................................... 109 

Semiannual Congressional Report ......................................................................... 115 

Senate Sergeant at Arms Staffing Level ............................................................... 113 

Sergeant at Arms Comprehensive Strategic Plan ................................................. 114 

Telecommunications Modernization Program ....................................................... 111 

Tunnel Access .......................................................................................................... 118 

U.S. Secret Service Security Assessment .............................................................. 110 

United States Capitol Police Salary Budget Increases ......................................... 122 

Visitor Stratification ................................................................................................ 118 

Æ