S. HRG. 109–302, PT. 2 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Legislative Branch 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2007 

109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

H.R. 5521 

PART 2 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD 

U.S. SENATE 
Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2007 (H.R. 5521)—Part 2 
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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–434 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–302, PT. 2 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 5521 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

PART 2 

Architect of the Capitol (except House items) 

Capitol Guide Board 

Congressional Budget Office 

Government Accountability Office 

Government Printing Office 

Library of Congress 

Office of Compliance 

U.S. Capitol Police Board 

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 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

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 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

(ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

CAROLYN E. APOSTOLOU

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN (Minority) 

DREW WILLISON (Minority) 

NANCY OLKEWICZ (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

SARAH WILSON
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006 

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 1 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006 

U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary ....................................................................... 75 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 141 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006 

U.S. Senate: Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper ................................................... 167 

U.S. Capitol Police Board ........................................................................................ 199 

Capitol Guide Board ................................................................................................ 217 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 223 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006 

Office of Compliance ................................................................................................ 269 

Government Printing Office .................................................................................... 295 

Congressional Budget Office ................................................................................... 309 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006 

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

The subcommittee met at 10:27 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS; 

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP PROGRAM 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 

SERVICE 

JULIA HUFF, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE 

KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, BOOKS FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED 

KARL SCHORNAGEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee will come to order. I am 

going to do the unprecedented thing and get us started ahead of 

time, ahead of schedule. I am told we have our witnesses here, everybody of interest that is going to be present for the hearing. So 

we will go ahead and get you seated for the proceeding, and we will 

start out with my making a few comments and then we will call 

on the first panelist to make their presentation. 

We meet today to take testimony from Dr. James Billington, Librarian of Congress, on the Library’s budget request for fiscal year 

2007. We welcome Dr. Billington, who is accompanied by Deputy 

Librarian Don Scott, and the Library’s top team. The request for 

appropriation totals $588 million, along with offsetting collections 

of $40 million, for a total budget of $628 million, an increase of 

about 4 percent over this year’s budget. 

This is a relatively modest request and we appreciate that you 

have not requested a large number of new projects and initiatives. 

However, within the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) budget a total 

of $102 million is requested for Library buildings and grounds, including a new $54 million logistics warehouse for the Library. This 

appropriation request represents a 50 percent increase over the fis-
2 

cal year 2006 budget for Library buildings and grounds and will be 

very tough to accommodate. 

In particular, questions have been raised as to whether the design for the warehouse is gold-plated and whether more cost-effective alternatives have been explored thoroughly. 

Other issues we would like to be updated on today include the 

status of the new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center 

(NAVCC) in Culpeper, Virginia, which I had the opportunity to 

visit in December; plans for converting the books for the blind and 

physically handicapped to digital format; and the ongoing realignment of the Congressional Research Service. 

Dr. Billington will also submit testimony for the record as chairman of the Open World Leadership Center. This program is slated 

for a $14.4 million budget, a $540,000 increase of 4 percent over 

the 2006 level. 

Those are my opening comments. Now we will go to the panel 

that we have before us. I will call on Dr. Billington for his testimony, and also welcome General Scott. It is good to have you with 

us this morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE LIBRARIAN

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate 

the opportunity to present the Library of Congress fiscal 2007 

budget request to the subcommittee. I have provided details of the 

Library’s accomplishments and goals in my written statement. We 

have approached this budget submission keenly aware of the fiscal 

challenges that this subcommittee, as well as the Congress as a 

whole, faces, Mr. Chairman. 

The Congress and the Library faces unprecedented challenges 

itself if it is to sustain in the exploding digital age its historic mission of acquiring, preserving, and making accessible the world’s 

largest and most globally inclusive collection of human knowledge. 

That mission has never been more important for our service to the 

Congress or for our overall national needs than it is now in the 

midst of the information age and the globalization process. 

WORKFORCE TRANSFORMATION

In order to sustain high-quality services at a time of radical 

change in the ways knowledge is communicated and developed, the 

Library must undertake an institutional workforce transformation. 

Sixty-five percent of our budget is for people; 40 percent of our 

workforce will be eligible to retire by the year 2010. We need 

knowledge navigators imbued with a new set of skills, in many 

cases capable of seamlessly integrating digital materials with books 

and other traditional artifactual items, books and so forth, in order 

to provide users with comprehensive and objective knowledge that 

is useable and the practical wisdom that has always been a part 

of our democratic function. 

The Library is already leading the national effort to archive the 

Internet, an enormous task, and we must help develop standards 

for the electronic sharing of bibliographic records, just as the Library has historically done for the print world with its cataloguing 

records. 
3 

Incidentally, we catalogued more than 313,000 books and periodicals last year, more than ever before in the Library’s history. So 

the traditional needs continue as the digital demands explode. 

The Library must begin its transformation of functions, facilities, 

and people with the reallocation of existing resources. Our current 

process of analysis and planning adheres to the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and we will produce 

in calendar year 2007 a comprehensive strategic plan from which 

the budget submission for fiscal year 2009 will be derived, and the 

extended nature of resource needs for 2013 will be outlined. This 

planning process is already informing our budget process, but that 

is the schedule on which it will be formally implemented. 

NATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER—CULPEPER

The 4.1 percent increase we request for fiscal 2007 is almost entirely for mandatory pay and price level increases. Our fiscal year 

2007 request for the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in 

Culpeper, Virginia, represents a decrease of $1.2 million from the 

fiscal year 2006 request. This project is progressing well. We expect 

to complete construction and begin moving collections and staff in 

May of this year. 

The unique facility will allow us to preserve more quickly and effectively hundreds of thousands of items in our audiovisual collection that are a critically important part of America’s cultural heritage, but very vulnerable to degradation and very much in need of 

calibrated conservation, which we will be able to provide with the 

largest and most up to date such facility in the world. 

This project would not have been possible without the financial 

support of the Congress and an unusually generous private funding 

from David Woodley Packard and the Packard Humanities Institute. 

ACQUISITIONS BUDGET REQUEST

We are very grateful for the additional resources we were provided in the past two fiscal years for acquisitions, but we are still 

falling behind in our all-important current acquisitions, which is 

the absolute core requirement of this institution so that it can 

properly serve the Congress and the Nation. 

In fiscal year 2007 I respectfully but urgently ask that the Congress continue supporting our acquisitions with an additional $2 

million. These funds will allow us to continue collecting materials 

that we uniquely bring from all areas of the world, particularly 

from lesser known and lesser understood regions that are becoming 

increasingly important for our Nation, both for economic and security needs. It is important that we sustain the schedule that we 

have established and have been falling behind on for acquisitions. 

OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES

But beyond these two important ongoing priorities, we have limited our budget request to three new projects, all of which total less 

than $2 million: $1 million for the Copyright Office to begin a 

record preservation project, an initiative requested by Congress in 

fiscal 2005; $781,000 to begin our workforce transformation by en-
4 

hancing the staff digital competencies, career development, and recruitment; and $150,000 to begin preparing a major exhibition in 

2009 marking the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. This 

total project will cost $1.4 million, will include a traveling exhibit, 

and will be a major effort for this important milestone. 

LOGISTICS CENTER

Let me mention finally, as you brought up, the request in the Architect of the Capitol’s budget for $54.2 million to construct a Library logistics center at Fort Meade. I understand and sympathize 

with the subcommittee’s concern regarding the cost of this facility 

and I will be working with the Architect of the Capitol to find ways 

to reduce its cost. This facility is critically needed for the Library’s 

day to day distribution and logistics needs and will provide a longterm cost saving to the Government by consolidating costly and 

outmoded storage space from three locations into one modern, safer 

and more secure location. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

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 2007 budget request. I would like to thank this Committee for the strong support it has always shown the Library’s programs, and I ask for your support again 

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 unique 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 now have many 

(and often more convenient) ways of finding what they need. But they are often 

overwhelmed or misled by the profusion of unfiltered and often inaccurate information on the World Wide Web. The Library of Congress must redefine its role in this 

new environment. This institution-wide process is now underway—and will be embedded in the new strategic plan that we are developing for the entire Library for 

2008–2013. 

The budget request we have submitted to you includes the following basic assumptions: 

—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. 

—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. 

—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. 

The aim is to blend the new digital materials into the traditional artifactual collections so that knowledge and information can be objectively and comprehensively provided by an integrated library. 

—The transformation of functions, of facilities, and of people must begin with a 

reallocation of existing resources. The current process of analysis and planning 

will produce, in the course of calendar 2006, the strategic plan that will determine the extent and nature of resource needs for future budget submissions. 
5 

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS OF TODAY

Library of Congress collections are made up of more than 132 million artifactual 

items in more than 470 languages including: 30 million books (among them more 

than 5,000 printed before the year 1500); 14 million photographs; 5.2 million maps; 

3 million audio materials; 981,000 films, television, and video items; 5.3 million 

pieces of music; 59 million manuscripts; and hundreds of thousands of scientific and 

government documents. 

And these collections continue to grow. More than 13,000 items are added to the 

Library’s collections every day. These materials are organized, cataloged, and served 

to readers in on-site reading rooms and through cultural programs and exhibitions. 

A steadily increasing number of materials are made available free of charge on the 

Internet. 

The Library’s collections gather in not only regularly published materials, but arcane reports that have limited distribution, international ephemera that illuminate 

other cultures and socio-political movements, and special collections that have been 

carefully assessed by our curators and acquired by our donors. Among the many 

new materials acquired by the Library in fiscal year 2005 are: 

—The unique Jay I. Kislak Collection of nearly 4,000 items documenting the early 

history of the Americas. 

—38,555 individual oral histories collected from interviews with U.S. war veterans. 

—Original music manuscripts of Felix Mendelssohn, Jerome Kern, George 

Gershwin, and Woody Guthrie. 

—The Bernard Krisher Collection, containing 450 taped interviews with Asian 

dignitaries documenting major developments in Asia from 1962–1983. 

—The personal and professional papers of the late Chief Executive Officer and 

Publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham. 

—The Cuban Exile Collection, 234 microfilm reels of materials documenting the 

Cuban-American experience. 

—Factiva, a full-text online database of publications and up-to-the minute reports 

and news focusing on global developments and business from 118 countries in 

22 languages. 

—A collection of 454 charts of the coast of China from the Chinese Navy Headquarters, the Navigation Guarantee Department. A complete set of modern hydrographic charts of the Chinese coastline and areas of the South China Sea. 

—The American Colony of Jerusalem Collection, a Christian society formed in Jerusalem in 1881 by an American, Horatio Gates Spafford, and his wife Anna 

Lawson Spafford. 

Library of Congress services include: 

—Fulfilling our priority mission of service to the Congress through the objective 

research and analysis done exclusively for the Congress by the Congressional 

Research Service. Our Law Library also largely serves the Congress. Overall, 

the Library provides a wide range of services from analysis on current public 

policy issues to responses to constituent requests. 

—In fiscal year 2005, the Library performed the following major services to the 

Congress and its constituents: 

—Delivered more than 900,000 replies to members of Congress, covering nearly 

200 current policy areas and providing access to 1,400 regularly updated research products. 

—Registered about 532,000 copyright claims. 

—Circulated nearly 24 million books and magazines free of charge to the blind 

and physically handicapped. 

—Assisted local libraries all over the nation by cataloging nearly 313,000 books 

and serials—the highest number in the Library’s history. 

Library of Congress digital leadership includes: 

—Providing free internet access to its entire catalog, to more than 10 million primary documents of American history and culture, to a growing body of similarly 

unique and multi-medial materials from six other major national libraries, and 

to extensive information about the Congress. In fiscal year 2005, our web site, 

www.loc.gov, recorded more than 3.8 billion hits—a 14 percent increase in usage 

over fiscal year 2004. 

—Coordinating the development and implementation of a comprehensive national 

plan mandated by the Congress for preserving important but often ephemeral 

materials on the Internet. The Library has enlisted eight national consortia involving 36 institutions across the country to share in this massive project. The 

Library has already collected 128 terabytes; and our partners are expected to 
6 

collect an estimated 100 terabytes. The materials include digital maps, photographs, TV programming, news, and datasets. 

BUILDING THE LIBRARY FOR THE FUTURE

The Library’s Vision and Strategic Plan 

The Library’s vision is to sustain in the digital world of the 21st century its historic mission of acquiring, preserving, and making maximally accessible to the public and useful for the Congress a universal collection of human knowledge. The challenge now is to bring the best of the traditional library into the digital environment. 

This will require holding fast to the principles of equitable access and long-term 

preservation while seamlessly integrating new digital materials with traditional 

artifactual items and helping develop standards and protocols for the electronic 

sharing of bibliographic records just as the Library did for the print world with its 

cataloging records. 

The Library has developed a Library-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 National Audio-Visual Conservation 

Center. And 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 institution is undertaking a comprehensive strategic planning process that 

adheres to the spirit of GPRA and will guide us in what will have to be a major 

transformation of our workforce. We must find ways to transfer the widely recognized skills of our best traditional librarians on to the more broadly and democratically accessible Web and into K–12 education which is making increasing use of the 

Library’s online resources. We must continue to integrate and be open to new technology and best business practices library-wide—and to maximize fairness and diversity in building the workforce of the future. 

This work will continue in fiscal year 2006, culminating in a comprehensive new 

strategic plan for fiscal year 2008–2013, from which all future budget requests will 

be derived. Our fiscal year 2007 request already reflects the Library’s improved 

strategic planning process and has led us to ask for no new additional FTEs and 

a historically low 4 percent budgetary increase despite the many challenges that the 

Library will face in fiscal year 2007. 

THE LIBRARY’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

In fiscal year 2007, the Library requests a total budget of $628.465 million 

($588.131 million in net appropriations and $40.334 million in authority to use receipts), an increase of $24.842 million or 4.1 percent above the fiscal year 2006 level. 

The total includes $23.969 million in mandatory pay and price level increases and 

$4.896 million in program increases, offset by $4.023 million in non-recurring costs. 

Requested funding supports 4,258 full-time equivalents (FTEs), a net decrease of 

44 FTEs below the fiscal year 2006 level of 4,302. 

The Library’s programs and activities are funded by four salaries and expenses 

(S&E) appropriations which support management of the Library, the National and 

Law Library Services, Copyright administration, Congressional Research Service, 

and Library Services to the Blind and Physically Handicapped. 

Fiscal year 2007 funding is allocated as follows: 

—Library of Congress, S&E ($409.294 million/2,902 FTEs), which includes: 

—National Library ($312.590 million/2,264 FTEs) 

—National Library—Basic 

—Purchase of Library Materials (GENPAC) 

—Office of Strategic Initiatives 

—Cataloging Distribution Service 

—Law Library ($14.026 million/101 FTEs) 

—Management Support Services ($82.723 million/537 FTEs) 

—Copyright Office, S&E ($59.189 million/523 FTEs) 

—Congressional Research Service, S&E ($104.279 million/705 FTEs) 

—Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, S&E ($55.703 million/128 

FTEs) 

THE LIBRARY’S FUNDING PRIORITIES

Mandatory Pay and Price Level Increases 

The Library is requesting an additional $23.969 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, within grade increases, and unavoidable 
7 

inflation and vendor price increases. 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 $2.171 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 has argued that the DOS methodology for assessing agencies is unfair since it is based on the number of overseas personnel rather 

than on actual services or space provided by DOS in diplomatic facilities. The Library’s yearly assessment was $1.2 million in fiscal year 2005 and $2.4 million in 

fiscal year 2006. The proposed bill for fiscal year 2007 is $4.572 million, an increase 

of $2.171 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 (Islamabad, 

Cairo, Jakarta, Nairobi, New Delhi and Rio de Janeiro). The Library continues to 

negotiate with the DOS and will alert the Committees if DOS agrees to any downward adjustments of their assessment. 

Major Ongoing Projects 

The Library is requesting $794,000 for two 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. —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 2007 represents the fourth year in the Library’s fiveyear cost model, which is adjusted annually to align with shifts in the construction schedule of the Packard Humanities Institute and the Library’s occupancy 

schedule. In 2005, the Phase 1 Central Plant was turned over to the AOC and 

the Collections Building to the Library. In 2006, construction will be completed 

and the entire property transferred to the government. Staff relocations will 

take place, as will the procurement and integration of digital preservation 

equipment and systems within the NAVCC’s audio-visual conservation facility. 

Funding is needed in fiscal year 2007 to continue purchasing equipment for the 

facility as well as for operations support. Total requested fiscal year 2007 funding of $13.9 million reflects a net decrease of $1.206 million and –6 FTEs from 

fiscal year 2006. —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 knowledge. 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 fiscal year 2005– 

2006 budget requests 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 seriously eroding the foundation of the many 

services provided by the Library to the Congress and the nation. 

New Projects 

The Library is requesting $1.931 million for three new critical initiatives as follows: —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 2007, the Library is requesting the 

first $1 million, which will permit the scanning of 10 million page images. 

—Workforce Transformation Project.—Renewal and development of the Library 

workforce is 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 2007, the Library will begin 
8 

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 $781,000 is requested, and will support initiatives to: 

—Define and develop digital competencies 

—Build an aspiring leaders program for GS 5–9 employees 

—Enhance Library-wide training through the Center for Learning and Development 

—Create a summer intern recruitment program and a talent pool for permanent 

employment 

—Expand interpreting services. 

—Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition.—The Library is planning a major 

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition in 2009. The exhibition 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, of which 

$150,000 is requested in fiscal year 2007. The balance of $1.292 million will be 

requested in fiscal year 2008. Multi-year (3 year) authority is requested for the 

fiscal year 2007 funding. Funding will support the design of the exhibition and 

travel needed to visit other venues and/or other institutions that will be lending 

materials to the Library exhibition. 

Other Program Changes 

Congress created and passed the Library of Congress Digital Collections and Educational Curricula Act of 2005. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the Act moved the administrative and programmatic ownership of the Adventure of the American Mind 

(AAM) from the Educational and Research Consortium to the Library. 

While no additional funding is requested in fiscal year 2007 for the Library’s new 

AAM National Program, the Library is requesting a change in the way the base 

funding of $5.801 million is used. Whereas this entire amount was earmarked for 

grants in fiscal year 2006, we would like the fiscal year 2007 funding to support 

both administrative ($1.791 million) needs and grant awards ($4.01 million). In addition, the Library will begin developing standards-based, field-tested curricula, 

using a train-the-trainer model to create a network of partners from all parts of the 

country. 

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 an fiscal year 2007 budget of $102.2 million, of which $62.265 million supports projects specifically requested by the Library. Included is $54.2 million to construct a 166,000 square foot logistics warehouse at Fort Meade, replacing and consolidating current long-term and temporary 

facilities leased and maintained by the Library. 

The significant increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget request level is the result 

of deferring maintenance and upgrades to the Library’s buildings on Capitol Hill 

and the delays in the Fort Meade construction plan. Costs are higher because more 

maintenance and upgrade projects need to be completed concurrently. Deferments 

and delays have 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, and return to its construction plan and schedule. 

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 noncompetitively 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 staff who have 

been separated, priority for selection for competitive service positions comparable to 

that enjoyed by separated employees from other federal agencies. 
9 

We also propose 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. 

The fiscal year 2006 administrative provision limiting the Library’s assessment 

for embassy construction to equal to or less than the unreimbursed value of the 

services provided to the Library on State Department diplomatic facilities must also 

be maintained in fiscal year 2007. 

CONCLUSION

The Library of Congress’ priorities expressed in the fiscal year 2007 budget request have a common theme: that of enhancing and transforming the staff, the collections they manage, and the buildings that house them. These requests will make 

it possible for the Library to improve the quality of its service in keeping with the 

high ideal of a knowledge-based democracy and a creativity-enhancing society. This 

budget will help us prepare for the many changes needed to sustain and expand the 

opportunities for a free people to benefit from an open and universal stream of 

knowledge and information. The Library looks forward to working with and for the 

Congress as we seek to build these opportunities in fiscal year 2007, and in the 

years ahead. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

present testimony on the Open World Leadership Center’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2007. The Center, whose board of trustees I chair, conducts the only foreignvisitor program in the U.S. legislative branch and sponsors the largest U.S.-Russia 

inbound exchange. All of us at Open World are very grateful for our home and support in the legislative branch and for congressional participation in our programs 

and on our governing board. The Consolidated Appropriations Act passed in December 2004 made the chair of this subcommittee ex officio a member of Open World’s 

board, and my fellow trustees and I are pleased and honored to have you join us, 

Mr. Chairman. We look forward to working with you as we make important decisions on the future of Open World. 

During an important year of assessment and change, the Board and staff began 

to review all aspects of the program in order to produce in fiscal year 2006 a comprehensive strategic plan for the future. This review is being led by Board member 

James Collins, who played a key role in launching the program when he was Ambassador to Russia. 

Geraldine Otremba completed her outstanding leadership of the able and dedicated staff of the Center in September 2005. Aletta Waterhouse, who had also done 

great work with the program from its beginning, served very well as Interim Executive Director. The Board will name a new Executive Director in early spring of 2006. 

The Center’s budget request of $14.4 million (Appendix A) for fiscal year 2007 reflects an increase of $0.54 million (4.0 percent) over fiscal year 2006 funding. This 

funding will enable the Center to continue its proven mission of hosting young leaders from Russia; expand its important program for Ukraine; and conduct smaller 

programs for such other countries as the Board of Trustees will approve in consultation with the Appropriations Committees. The budget increase over fiscal year 2006 

is due to increases of salaries and benefits (11 percent of increase), airfares and impact of changing exchange rates (60 percent of increase), and domestic transportation, per diem and other programmatic costs (29 percent). 

In 2005, Open World welcomed its 10,000th participant in its sixth year of operation. We began calendar year 2005 by organizing a major post-Orange Revolution 

exchange to six U.S. states for Ukrainian judges, election experts, NGO managers, 

and journalists. We ended the year with a local-government study tour in Maine for 

a delegation from the Solovetsky Islands, home to one of the Soviet Union’s first 

prison camps and one of Russia’s greatest monasteries. 

Open World brought 1,552 Russians and Ukrainians to the United States in calendar 2005 to work with their American counterparts while experiencing our democracy and civil society. The Chief Justice of the Russian Supreme Court had planning 

sessions at the U.S. Supreme Court on U.S.-Russian judicial cooperation; two teams 

of Russian child-trauma experts helping Beslan victims consulted with Pennsylvania 

social agencies on their mental and social support services, and a delegation of 
10 

Ukrainian journalists shared their experiences during the Orange Revolution at a 

forum in Cincinnati. 

Open World’s plans for calendar year 2006 include programs on accountable governance for officials from municipalities created under Russia’s recent law on local 

self-governance; expanding our two-year-old exchange for Ukrainian leaders; and 

providing programs on elections to both Russian and Ukrainian leaders. We will 

also continue our 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, including Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B. Brooks 

of Denver, Colorado, and U.S. District Judge Michael M. Mihm of Peoria, Illinois. 

As I discuss below, this calendar year the Center’s board—in consultation with the 

members of the Appropriations Committees—must also make important decisions 

about whether and where Open World should expand in Eurasia. 

Program Leadership 

Senator Ted Stevens (AK) serves as honorary chairman of the Open World Leadership Center’s board. The congressionally appointed members are Senate Majority 

Leader Bill Frist (TN), Senator Carl Levin (MI), and Representative Robert E. ‘‘Bud’’ 

Cramer (AL). The second congressionally appointed seat reserved for a member of 

the House of Representatives is currently vacant. Public Law 108–447, as amended 

by Public Law 109–13, added to the Board the chair of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives or designee and the chair of the Subcommittee 

on Legislative Branch of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. Former 

U.S. Ambassador to Russia James F. Collins, Walter Scott, Jr., Chairman of Level 

3 Communications, former Representative Amo Houghton, and former U.S. Ambassador to Spain George Argyros are the current citizen members. I sit on the Board 

in my capacity as Librarian of Congress, and I currently serve as chairman. The 

Board of Trustees met on December 5, 2005, and reviewed the budget request and 

program plans presented below. 

Program Objectives: 

Open World program enhances professional relationships and understanding between political and civic leaders of participating countries and the United States. 

It is designed to enable emerging young leaders from the selected countries to: 

—build mutual understanding with their U.S. counterparts and share approaches 

to common challenges; 

—observe U.S. government, business, volunteer, and community leaders carrying 

out their daily responsibilities; 

—experience how the separation of powers, checks and balances, freedom of the 

press, and other key elements of America’s democratic system make the government more accountable and transparent; 

—develop an understanding of the U.S. free enterprise system; 

—learn how U.S. citizens organize and take initiative to address social and civic 

needs; 

—participate in American family and community activities; and 

—establish lasting professional and personal ties with their U.S. hosts and counterparts. 

Open World provides the highest-caliber program for the U.S. visit so that Open 

World participants return to their countries with a meaningful understanding of 

America’s democracy and market economy. 

Open World has refined and focused on a few key themes central to democracybuilding in order to improve the quality and focus of the U.S. program. 

The catalytic effect of the 10-day U.S. stay is extended by fostering continued 

post-visit communication between participants and their American hosts and contacts, their fellow Open World alumni, and alumni of other USG-sponsored exchange programs. 

In calendar 2005, Russian alumni participated in 168 interregional conferences, 

workshops, meetings, and professional seminars sponsored by Open World. A major 

conference for the program’s Lithuanian alumni was held in the capital city of 

Vilnius, and three events were held for alumni in Ukraine. 

Open World’s multilingual website with online forums (and assisted Russian/ 

English translation for cross-cultural communication) helps maintain communication among delegates, American hosts, and other interested parties. Open World 

also operates two listservs for Russian alumni, one with news of grants, competitions, and other sources of financial support, the other with weekly updates on Open 

World news and announcements and opportunities for cooperation and partnership 

with fellow alumni. All alumni activities and the website are supported through private funding. 
11 

Measures of Success 

In addition to conducting the qualitative assessments described above, the Center 

also tracks quantitative program performance measures to ensure that Open World 

is meeting its mission of focusing on a geographically and professionally broad crosssection 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 and virtually all 

those of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Uzbekistan. 

—84 percent of Russian participants live outside Moscow and St. Petersburg. 

—More than 5,000 federal, regional, and local government officials have participated, including 156 members of parliament and 935 judges. 

—The average age of Open World delegates is 38. 

—92 percent of delegates are first-time visitors to the United States. 

—Only 12.5 percent of delegates report having ‘‘above average’’ or better Englishlanguage skills. (Several U.S. exchange programs require some English-language skills. By not requiring knowledge of English, Open World is able to 

choose from a much larger candidate pool of young leaders. Interpretation is 

provided for all Open World delegations.) 

—49 percent of delegates are women. (Women did not have significant leadership 

opportunities in the Soviet Union.) 

—The distribution of delegates among Russia’s seven ‘‘super-regions’’ roughly 

matches that of the country’s general population. 

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 5,300 U.S. families have 

hosted participants in more than 1,500 communities in all 50 states. 

—In 2005, the 204 locally based Open World host organizations in 147 congressional districts included universities and community colleges, library systems, 

Rotary clubs and other service organizations, sister-city associations, courts, 

and nonprofits. 

American hosts’ generosity toward and enthusiasm for Open World are a mainstay of the program. In 2005, interested host communities’ demand for Open World 

visitors exceeded supply by 34 percent. Americans’ enthusiasm for the Open World 

Program is reflected in their generous giving. In 2005, Americans gave an estimated 

$1.9 million worth of in-kind contributions through volunteer home hosting of delegates, a ratio of one dollar in contributions for every seven dollars in appropriated 

funds. 

Visiting delegates, in turn, have impacted American communities by sharing ideas 

with their professional counterparts, university faculty and students, governors and 

state legislators, American war veterans, and other American citizens in a variety 

of forums such as group discussions, Rotary Club breakfasts, and town hall meetings. 

During a 2005 Open World visit to Appleton, Wisconsin, for example, a Russian 

delegate from Kurgan Region, which borders Kazakhstan, proposed an idea at a Rotary club event. Since there were so many World War II veterans in attendance, 

the delegate suggested an exchange of letters between Wisconsin World War II veterans and their Kurgan counterparts. One such letter from a member of the Appleton-Kurgan Sister City Program reads, in part: 

‘‘WWII efforts created a significant result in history and provided a great victory 

which was achieved with the help of the Russians for the benefit of the world. Many 

people, especially among our Russian friends, lost family members... Some of my 

schoolmates lost their lives as well. They made the ultimate sacrifice from which 

all of us in the years since the war have benefited.’’ 

Students from Appleton North High School became interested in the correspondence and decided to interview local veterans, record their stories digitally, and make 

them available online. The letters also inspired an op-ed article in the local paper 

on Memorial Day last year and will be displayed at the Appleton Public Library. 

We understand the U.S. Consulate in Yekaterinburg as well as Fox Cities Online 

are interested in displaying the letters on their websites. In short, the Open World 

delegation’s visit to Wisconsin is having a wide ripple effect. 

Two other examples of interchanges that benefited the American host communities come from Urbana, Illinois, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In Urbana, a visiting Open World rule of law delegate made a detailed presentation on the differences between the Russian and American court systems to the Champaign County circuit court judges, state’s attorney, and public defender; this was followed up 
12 

by a lively question and answer session. And in Harrisburg, the two Open World 

teams of child-trauma experts working with Beslan victims shared their harrowing 

experiences and the latest information on Russian child-trauma theory and practice 

during presentations to social-service providers and community leaders. 

As a result of the Open World Program, American professional leaders are also 

expanding their own international networks, opening up multiple channels of dialogue to integrate new ideas and values. Today one of the best ways to connect with 

the Supreme Court of Ukraine might be through Charles R. Simpson III, a federal 

district court judge in Louisville, Kentucky. One of Judge Simpson’s 2005 Open 

World delegates, Ukrainian appellate judge Tatyana Valentinovna Shevchenko, recently e-mailed him with the news that she had just been appointed to her country’s 

high court. 

The Importance of Russia 

The Board believes that Open World should maintain a high level of hosting from 

Russia. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in a February 12, 2006 interview, we must challenge ‘‘Russia as a whole... the Russian people, to fully integrate [democratic institutional] values into their future.’’ Michael McFaul of the 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently asserted the need for ‘‘exchanges, connections, anything that increases connectivity between Russian and 

American society.’’ 

The Open World Program is playing a growing role in helping Russia’s emerging 

leaders experience first hand the workings of our democratic institutions to. The 

ranks of Russian Open World participants include: 

—719 senior regional administrators and 163 regional legislators; 

— more than 1,000 mayors, city council members, municipal departmental heads, 

and executive-level city officials; 

—887 judges; 

—588 NGO directors; and 

—188 print editors and 68 heads of TV and radio stations. 

In addition, the Open World experience has contributed to the establishment or 

strengthening of 65 sister-organization and Rotary International partner relations, 

including 17 partnerships between U.S. and Russian legal communities. 

Calendar Year 2005 Activities 

Russia 

Among the 1,410 Russian participants in calendar year 2005, delegates came from 

a wide range of regional ethnic groups, and had hosting experiences in 47 U.S. 

states and the District of Columbia. Open World’s hosting themes were economic development, the environment, health and social services, rule of law, women as leaders, and, for the first time, local governance. Under the health/social services theme, 

several Open World teams concentrated on AIDS prevention and treatment, disability issues, or substance abuse prevention and treatment. Open World also hosted 

two delegations of Russian nonproliferation specialists who worked with their counterparts at two U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories. 

A highlight of our 2005 Russia program was a rule of law exchange hosted by 

Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B. Brooks of Denver, Colorado, for a high-level 

delegation of Russian Supreme Commercial Court justices and regional commercialcourt chief judges. The Russians held talks with federal and state judges and University of Denver law professors, observed court proceedings, took a workshop on alternative dispute resolution, and were briefed by the state attorney general on his 

office’s role and structure. The delegates also attended the U.S. district court’s weekly press briefing and analyzed it with court staff afterward. Thanks to the relationships established by this and earlier commercial-court exchanges, the head of Russia’s Supreme Commercial Court will visit the United States later this month on 

a trip supported by the Department of State and Open World. 

As a result of legislation passed in 2003, the Open World Russia program now 

also includes up-and-coming arts administrators and artists in a range of media— 

important leaders to the development of a democratic society. Support from the National Endowment for the Arts enables the Russian Cultural Leaders Program to 

offer two- and three-week residencies to these participants. The 2005 cultural program were brought Russian writers to the University of Mississippi to participate 

in the Oxford Conference on the Book, and brought Russian documentary 

filmmakers to the Athens Center for Film and Video in Athens, Ohio, for an intensive residency. 
13 

Ukraine 

Ukraine was selected in 2003 for an Open World program because of its strategic 

position in Eurasia, its large and educated population, and its important potential 

contribution to regional stability. 

The 142 young Ukrainian leaders that Open World welcomed in calendar year 

2005 were hosted in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The theme for Ukraine 

in 2005 was ‘‘civil society,’’ with subthemes in independent media, electoral processes, NGO development, and rule of law. Open World initiated a judge-to-judge 

program similar to its highly successful judicial exchange with Russia. Forty-two 

Ukrainian judges, including a Supreme Court justice and two members of the Supreme Commercial Court, were hosted in eight different states. In a number of the 

American communities that hosted Ukrainian leaders, the impact of the Orange 

Revolution was discussed in presentations, roundtables, and panels. 

The September 13, 2005 mayoral primary in Cincinnati provided the backdrop for 

one of this year’s most successful Ukrainian exchanges: a study trip on American 

media and elections for a delegation of print and broadcast journalists. Hosted locally by the Cincinnati-Ukraine Partnership, the delegates observed mayoral candidates being interviewed by the press, spent a half day with key editors of the Cincinnati Enquirer, had a workshop on public relations and the press, and observed 

balloting at the Board of Elections on election night. They also sat in on newspaper 

editorial meetings and a live television news broadcast, allowing them to feel, as one 

delegation member said, like ‘‘part of the editorial team.’’ 

Open World 2006 and Plans for 2007 

For 2006, the Board of Trustees approved continuing the successful Open World 

programs for Russia (civic, cultural, and rule of law) and the rule of law and civic 

programs for Ukraine. I appointed a panel to assess and make recommendations for 

Board consideration on four major issues: (1) whether Open World should expand 

to other countries, and if so, which, (2) whether country programs should be linked 

by region, (3) what the scope and nature of alumni programs should be, and (4) 

what improvements could be made to the Russia and Ukraine programs. The panel 

will submit an overall strategic plan for board approval by June 2006. The Board 

will notify the Appropriations Committee of any countries selected for new Open 

World programs. Any program expansion will be initiated in calendar 2006 and fully 

implemented in 2007. By September 30, 2006, Open World will finish implementing 

the financial management and administrative recommendations in the Government 

Accountability Office’s March 2004 report on Open World. 

The budget request maintains hosting and other programmatic activities at a 

level of approximately 1,400 participants total. Actual allocations of hosting to individual countries will be adjusted to conform to Board of Trustees recommendations 

and consultation with the Appropriations Committees. The requested funding support is also needed for anticipated fiscal year 2007 pay increases and to cover the 

Department of State Capital Security Cost Sharing charge for the Center’s two Foreign National Staff. 

Major categories of requested funding are: 

—Personnel Compensation and Benefits ($1.197 million) 

—Contracts ($8.48 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; and providing health insurance for participants. 

—Grants ($4.72 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; cultural activities; local transportation; professional interpretation; and administrative support. 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2007 budget request will enable the Open World Leadership Center to continue to make major contributions to an 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 been essential ingredients in 

Open World’s success. 

I thank the Subcommittee for its continued support of the Open World Program. 
14 

APPENDIX A.—OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER BUDGET—FISCAL YEAR 2007 

Description 

Fiscal year 2007 

estimated obligations 

11.1 Personnel Compensation ............................................................................................................................. $944,100 

12.1 Personnel Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... 252,400 

21.0 Travel ........................................................................................................................................................... 97,500 

22.0 Transportation ............................................................................................................................................. 2,200 

23.0 Rent, Comm., Utilities ................................................................................................................................. 8,100 

24.0 Printing ........................................................................................................................................................ 4,100 

25.1 Other Services/Contracts ............................................................................................................................. 8,386,000 

26.0 Supplies ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,100 

31.0 Equipment ................................................................................................................................................... 16,500 

41.0 Grants .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,685,000 

Total, fiscal year 2007 budget request ................................................................................................. 14,400,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYBETH PETERS, THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to 

present the Copyright Office’s fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

The Copyright Office is requesting the Committee’s approval of four program 

changes for the Copyright BASIC appropriation. There are three offsetting collections authority changes and one in net appropriations. In offsetting collections, we 

are requesting a $1,590,901 decrease in the Reengineering Program funding due to 

fewer funds in the no year account, an $850,000 decrease due to a decrease in renewal receipts, and a $600,000 increase due to an overall increase in receipts from 

other service fees. In new net appropriation authority, the Office requests $1 million 

to digitally image the pre-1978 public records to mitigate the risk of loss and to 

make them available online. I will discuss these requests in more detail, after I provide an overview of the Office’s work and accomplishments. 

REVIEW OF COPYRIGHT OFFICE WORK AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Copyright Office’s mission is to promote creativity by sustaining an effective 

national copyright system. We do this by administering the copyright law; providing 

policy and legal assistance to the Congress, the administration, and the judiciary; 

and by informing and educating the public about our nation’s copyright system. The 

demands in these areas are growing and becoming more complex with the evolution 

and increased use of digital technology. 

I will briefly highlight some of the Office’s current and past work and our plans 

for fiscal year 2006. 

Policy and Legal Work 

We have continued to work closely with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 

its Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and its House counterpart. In May, I testified before the Senate Subcommittee on International Piracy of Intellectual Property, highlighting the fact that piracy is one of the most enduring copyright problems throughout the world and the Office’s efforts, together with other Federal 

agencies, to reduce piracy to the lowest levels possible. 

I also testified twice last year on ways to modernize music licensing in a digital 

world. In June, I testified before the House Subcommittee and in July, I testified 

before the Senate Subcommittee. During the first hearing, I focused on the possibility of permitting ‘‘music rights organizations’’ to license on a consolidated basis 

both the public performance right of a musical work as well as its reproduction and 

distribution rights. In the second hearing, I considered alternative solutions to the 

music licensing dilemma, including a blanket statutory license for digital phonorecord deliveries. These hearings and meetings with representatives of the affected 

industries produced a consensus that Section 115 of the copyright law should be 

modernized to reflect the needs and realities of the online world. However, there 

was no agreement as to how such modernization should be structured and implemented. Further work is needed in this area and I will continue to work with the 

interested parties and Congress on legislative solutions to the music licensing problem in this and the next fiscal year. 

I testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in September to examine 

legal and policy issues in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2005, decision 
15 

in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. which clarified the doctrine 

of secondary liability as it would apply to those who offer products and services in 

a way that induces others to engage in copyright infringement. I testified that the 

Court’s ruling seemed to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright holders and the flexibility necessary to enable and encourage technologists to 

continue to develop new products and, thus, there was no immediate need for new 

legislation. I used the word ‘‘seemed’’ because, at the time of the hearing, only three 

months had passed since the ruling and it was simply too early to tell whether 

Grokster would provide sufficient guidance for the years and circumstances to come. 

The Office implemented a new preregistration system, as required by the Family 

Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, Public Law 109–9, within the statutory 

six-month time frame. Preregistration of an unpublished work being prepared for 

commercial distribution allows a copyright owner to bring an infringement action 

before the authorized publication of the work and full registration, making it possible, upon full registration, to recover statutory damages and attorney fees. The 

electronic preregistration filing system became operational on November 15, 2005. 

The Office also conducted two studies in 2005. First, Senators Orrin Hatch and 

Patrick Leahy requested that we examine the issue of ‘‘orphan works,’’ copyrighted 

works whose owners are difficult or impossible to locate, to determine whether there 

are compelling concerns that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution; and 

if so, what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders. As part of our efforts to produce this study, the Office collected over 850 written comments from the 

public and held roundtable meetings with dozens of interested parties in the summer of 2005 in both Washington, D.C. and Berkeley, CA. The Report on Orphan 

Works was delivered to Congress in January 2006. Second, at the request of Congress, we have also conducted a study to examine the harm to copyright owners 

whose programming is retransmitted by satellite carriers under a statutory license 

in Section 119. This report was also delivered to Congress in January 2006. 

In addition, the Office has initiated its triennial rulemaking on exceptions from 

section 1201 prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works and has received public comments. In addition, we will 

conduct hearings in Washington, D.C. and Palo Alto, CA. to elicit further information from the public. The study will be concluded in fiscal year 2007, at which time, 

I will make my recommendations to the Librarian of Congress on classes of works 

that should be exempted from the section 1201 prohibition on circumvention. 

We have also been actively involved in the implementation of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (CRDRA), Public Law 108–419, which became effective on May 31, 2005. This Act phases out the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARPs), a program administered by the Copyright Office, and replaces 

them with a new Library program which is independent of the Copyright Office and 

employs three full-time Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJs) and three staff. This organization is known as the Copyright Royalty Board. At the outset of the program, 

I worked diligently with my colleagues to identify and recruit the three highly qualified individuals who the Librarian appointed to the Board in January 2006. 

The primary responsibilities of the CRJs, as with the CARPs which preceded 

them, are to set rates and terms for the various statutory licenses contained in the 

Copyright Act and to determine the distribution of royalty fees collected by the 

Copyright Office pursuant to certain of these licenses. The CRJs have the additional 

responsibility to promulgate notice and recordkeeping regulations to administer 

some of the statutory licenses. In accordance with the rate setting schedule set forth 

in the law, the Board has initiated three rate setting proceedings and it will conduct 

hearings in fiscal year 2007 to set rates for the transmission of sound recordings 

over the internet. 

We have worked closely with the Board to insure a smooth transition from the 

old system to the new and we have taken steps to conclude open and pending distribution and rate setting proceedings that were commenced under the Copyright 

Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) program. The conclusion of these proceedings, 

however, does not end my involvement in the determination of statutory rates and 

distributions of royalty fees. Under the Reform Act, the Board must seek a legal 

opinion from me on any novel question of copyright law and may seek a written determination on other material questions of substantive law. Such determinations 

shall be binding as precedent upon the Copyright Royalty Judges in subsequent proceedings. 

During fiscal year 2007, we will continue to take an active role in a number of 

important copyright cases, many of which challenge the constitutionality of various 

provisions of the Copyright Act, and continue to provide ongoing advice to executive 

branch agencies on international matters, particularly, the United States Trade 
16 

Representative, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of State; and 

participate in numerous multinational, regional and bilateral negotiations. 

Registration and Recordation 

Registration of claims to copyright, including renewals, and recordation of documents, such as assignments, security interests, and mergers, are critical parts of the 

U.S. copyright system. Timely registration secures to owners certain benefits and 

provides a public record of copyright ownership. The Office has significantly improved its delivery times for these services since 2001. 

During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Office received 600,535 claims to copyright 

covering more than a million works and registered 531,720 claims. The Office maintained an average of 80–90 days to issue a registration certificate, a significant improvement over processing times at the beginning of the decade. We also reduced 

the average processing time for the creation and posting of online copyright records 

by 50 percent. 

The Copyright Office records documents relating to copyrighted works, mask 

works, and vessel hull designs and creates records of those documents. These documents frequently concern popular and economically significant works. The Office recorded 11,874 documents covering more than 350,000 titles of works in fiscal year 

2005. The average time to record a document was 50–60 days. 

These achievements took place during a period marked by a significant investment of staff resources to reengineer Copyright Office processes and to move online 

copyright records from legacy systems to a database in Endeavor System’s Voyager. 

We expect a significant decrease in renewal registrations in 2007, due to the expiration of the renewal provision in the law. Renewal registrations only apply to 

works that were copyrighted before January 1, 1978, the effective date of the current copyright law. Before 1978, if a work was published with the required notice 

of copyright or an unpublished work was registered in the Copyright Office, it received an initial term of copyright protection of 28 years, and a renewal term that 

initially was 28 years and today is 67 years. To receive the renewal term, a renewal 

registration had to be made in the last year of the initial term, i.e., the 28th year. 

The last date for 28th year renewals was December 31, 2005. 

The law was changed in 1992 to make renewal registration voluntary. This law 

applies to works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. 

There were certain benefits gained by renewing in the 28th year, but if no renewal 

claim was registered in the 28th year of the term, renewal was automatically secured on the last day of that year. However, even if renewal is automatically secured, i.e., no renewal application was submitted in the 28th year of the initial term 

of copyright, a renewal claim may be submitted after the 28th year and some benefits flow from such a registration. A number of such registrations are made each 

year and we expect to receive 2,000 to 3,000 renewals in this category compared to 

the 16,000 to 18,000 renewals we have been receiving per year. 

The President signed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA), Public Law 109–9, on April 27, 2005. As mentioned earlier, this legislation amended the 

copyright law by the addition of a new provision, § 408(f), establishing 

preregistration. Preregistration, as distinct from registration, is available only for 

unpublished copyrighted works in categories that the Register of Copyrights finds 

to have had a history of infringement prior to commercial distribution. Unlike registration, preregistration requires only an application which includes a description 

of the work and a fee. Preregistration is an online service only; it is part of the new 

information technology system called eCO (Electronic Copyright Office). From April 

2005 through the end of the fiscal year, the Office completed intensive work to prepare the electronic preregistration application form and help text, and to do the related IT development, process analysis, and training required to implement on November 15, 2005. Much of the development work that was done for the 

preregistration system will be applied directly to the electronic registration system 

that will be piloted in April 2006. 

Public Information and Education 

The Copyright Office responded to 362,263 requests for direct reference services 

and electronically published thirty-nine issues of its electronic newsletter 

NewsNet—a source that alerts over 5,000 subscribers to Congressional hearings, 

new and proposed regulations, deadlines for comments, new publications, other 

copyright-related subjects, and news about the Copyright Office. 

The Office website continued to play a key role in disseminating information to 

the copyright community and the general public. The Office logged close to 30 million external hits to key web pages in fiscal year 2005, representing a 49 percent 

increase over the previous year. The website received several enhancements, includ-
17 

ing introduction of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds by which members of the 

public can receive instant notification of updates and revisions on pages that change 

frequently. There is a new history page that includes biographies of former Registers of Copyright, annual reports dating back to 1870, and previous copyright acts. 

The website is also part of LCNet, a new gateway for members of Congress and 

their staff. 

Licensing Activities 

The Copyright Office administers certain provisions of the copyright law’s statutory licenses. The Licensing Division collects royalty fees from cable operators for 

retransmitting television and radio broadcasts, from satellite carriers for retransmitting ‘‘superstation’’ and network signals, and from importers and manufacturers of 

digital audio recording products for later distribution to copyright owners. In calendar year 2005, the Office collected $212.6 million in royalty funds and distributed 

$150.7 million to copyright owners. 

Reengineering Program 

The Copyright Office’s seven-year Reengineering Program initiative is to redesign 

delivery of its public services. This program is customer driven to prepare our Office 

for the future growth in electronic submissions. The Office had planned for the reengineering implementation to be completed in the first half of fiscal year 2007, to 

include moving staff offsite so that its space in the Madison Building could be renovated in one phase. However, due to infrastructure and offsite lease requirements, 

the program cannot be completed until the third quarter of fiscal year 2007. The 

program has four major components—process, information technology, facilities, and 

organization that will be fully implemented in fiscal year 2007. 

Process 

Accomplishments in the process component closely tracked IT development. Pilot 

projects began in fiscal year 2005 to test both the new processes and the new IT 

system, eCO. In the Registration Pilot, several thousand actual copyright registrations for motion pictures were made using most of the new processes—incoming 

paper forms were scanned, hard copy deposits were bar-coded and tracked, and all 

internal processing and correspondence was done in the eCO system. 

Other pilots included the Deposit Selection Pilot, during which examiners successfully made selection decisions for certain routine monographs and musical works for 

the Library of Congress. In an Electronic Deposit Pilot, selected publishers submitted electronic versions of works via the internet, in preparation for electronic 

registration and possible future deposit of electronic formats for the Library’s collections. As I mentioned earlier, the new preregistration service was implemented in 

eCO with an online-only application and completely paperless process. This service 

successfully uses Treasury’s Pay.Gov for fee payments. 

Information Technology (IT) 

During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Technology Office (CTO) continued to work 

closely with the system development contractor SRA International, on the analysis, 

design, and building of the new Copyright IT systems infrastructure that will support the reengineered business processes. The CTO also made further significant 

progress on the conversion of the historical files of copyright registrations and 

recordations to MARC format and the preparation for access to the records through 

the Voyager system. 

To ensure compliance with the Library’s new system security regulation and 

newly issued security directives, the Office established a Security Review Board 

(SRB), made up of Copyright staff and consultants. During the 10 weeks preceding 

the implementation of the Registration Pilot, the SRB created a System Security 

Plan defining the security requirements, conducted a risk assessment, carried out 

a security compliance test and evaluation, and made recommendations to Copyright 

Office management about the security status of the software for this pilot. As a result, the Office received an interim authorization to operate and the system moved 

to production. 

In fiscal year 2006, the Office plans to expand its implementation of an on-line 

web portal—eCO Service—to allow the public to apply for copyright services online 

and pay with a credit card or bank account through Pay.Gov. Claims processing 

through the web portal will initially be a pilot to allow for full testing of the system 

before making it available to all the public in 2007. Additionally, we will use eCO 

to search a Voyager database of copyright records dating back to January 1, 1978. 

In fiscal year 2007 the Office plans to complete the IT component by transforming 

eCO Service from a pilot to full operational capability for processing copyright 

claims and issuing registration certificates, processing statements of account for 
18 

statutory licenses, processing acquisition demands under section 407, and recording 

transfers, assignments, and other documents. 

Facilities 

In November 2004, the Library appointed a project manager funded by the Copyright Office to oversee the Madison Building renovation project and coordinate attendant swing space moves within Capitol Hill and offsite. The Copyright Office 

hired a move management company to oversee the moves offsite and back to the 

Madison Building. In late September 2005, after an extensive search for temporary 

offsite lease space, the Library signed occupancy agreements with Government Services Administration (GSA) for space within two buildings in Crystal City, VA. In December 2005, an RFP was issued for construction of the offsite rental space. A contract was awarded in February 2006 and construction began in late February. Most 

of the Office’s staff will move offsite in early July 2006. The remaining operations 

and staff will be located in the Adams and Madison buildings. We expect all staff 

to return to the Madison renovated space in July 2007. 

Organization 

The Office completed new and revised position descriptions to support the new 

processes for most of the divisions in the new organizational structure. Preliminary 

work was done to prepare for the ‘‘cross-walk’’ of staff from current to new positions 

and from the current divisions and sub-units to the new ones. The Office began 

drafting documents required for the reorganization package as specified in Library 

of Congress regulations. In fiscal year 2007, the new organization and positions will 

be implemented, coinciding with the return of the staff to the Madison Building and 

the implementation of new processes. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

Reengineering 

No new funding is needed for reengineering for fiscal year 2007. Rather, the Office is reducing its offsetting collections base by $1,590,911 as a result of fewer 

funds remaining in the no-year account. 

Renewal Receipts 

With respect to renewal registrations, the Office is reducing its offsetting collections authority by $850,000 and five staff due to the fact that the number of renewal 

registrations will decrease significantly in fiscal year 2007. 

When renewal registration was required, the Office registered approximately 

52,000 claims. Since the enactment of the automatic renewal provision in 1992, the 

number of renewal claims have decreased each year. In fiscal year 2005, the Office 

received approximately 15,893 renewal claims bringing in fees of approximately $1.2 

million. In fiscal year 2006, we believe that amount will drop to about $500,000 and 

in fiscal year 2007 to about $150,000. Our records show that approximately 5,500 

renewal claims were received in October, November, and December 2004. This has 

decreased to 4,839 for the same period in 2005 and is expected to decline throughout 

the rest of fiscal year 2006. 

Overall Fees Increased 

Over the past two years, the overall fees collected for the Basic Fund have gradually increased and are projected in fiscal year 2007 to exceed the normal receipts 

level of approximately $23 million by $600,000. This is based on more dollars being 

received across all the fee products, not from a change in the fee schedule. Based 

on this trend, the Office requests a permanent $600,000 increase in offsetting collections authority. 

Copyright Records Preservation 

The Office requests funding to digitize the 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 of Congress 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. Additionally, the unavailability of pre-1978 

records online has been raised as a major issue in the study on the problem of ‘‘orphan works.’’ 
19 

During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Office, with the Library’s Office of Strategic Initiatives, completed the Copyright Records Project study of the feasibility of 

digitizing millions of these paper records and developing technical approaches for 

integrating the resulting digital records with post-1977 digital records. The project 

team completed testing of vendor capabilities to digitize and index sample records. 

A comprehensive report of the project provided implementation strategies, cost estimates, and a recommendation for how the conversion could be handled in two 

stages. The first stage would cost approximately $6,000,000 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 

$5,000,000 and $65,000,000 depending on the extent of fields indexed. The Copyright Office is requesting for fiscal year 2007 the initial $1 million to begin the first 

stage. 

FUTURE FEE INCREASE

On November 13, 1997, Congress enacted the Technical Amendments Act, some 

provisions of which are now codified in 17 U.S.C. § 708. The law requires the Register of Copyrights, whenever appropriate, to conduct a study of costs incurred by 

the Office for the registration of claims, the recordation of documents and other special services. On the basis of the study and public policy considerations and subject 

to congressional review, the Register is authorized to increase statutory and related 

fees to recover reasonable costs adjusted for inflation. Furthermore, the new fees 

should be fair and equitable and give due consideration to the objectives of the copyright system. 

The last time the Copyright Office raised fees was July 2002. The basic filing fee 

was set in 1999 and has not increased since that time. Historically, a change in the 

charge for services usually causes a drop in customer demand in the fiscal year following the increase and then a gradual rise in demand over the next two years. The 

possibility for raising fees was considered in 2001–2002. Because the Office had just 

begun its reengineering project to implement electronic registrations, and that 

project was to have been completed in 2006, the fee increase was postponed to coincide with the implementation of the new electronic system. However, since the implementation date for the new system is now summer 2007, we believe that we 

should move forward with a change to fees now. 

I have received fee recommendations based on a cost study developed by a task 

group. We will complete the required economic analysis and propose a schedule of 

fees to Congress in March 2006 to be effective July 1, 2006. The Office will publish 

a notice in the Federal Register to announce a proposed fee schedule. Based on a 

year’s experience under the revised fee schedule and the new business processes, the 

Office expects to adjust the mix of net appropriation and offsetting collections authority in its fiscal year 2008 BASIC budget submission to Congress. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to support the fiscal year 2007 Copyright Basic budget 

request for a permanent net decrease in offsetting collections for the BASIC appropriation and a one time $1 million increase in net appropriations for the Digital Imaging project. 

Our fiscal year 2007 budget will allow us to implement the final steps of our Reengineering Program. Once implemented, the Office plans to further reduce both its 

net appropriations and offsetting collections authority in the fiscal year 2008 budget 

request as well as adjust the net appropriations and offsetting collections based on 

the implementation of new fees. We appreciate your continued support for the Reengineering Project that will transform the way we do business and meet the 

public’s demand for electronic services. 

I thank the Committee for its past support of the Copyright Office requests and 

for your consideration of this request in this challenging time of transition and 

progress. 

LOGISTICS CENTER COST

Senator ALLARD. Thank you very much. I have a few questions. 

It should not take us too long this morning to get you on your way. 

On the logistics warehouse, I am glad to see that you recognize 

that this is a pretty big chunk that we are looking at. The total 

overhead is about 18 percent. You have 10 percent that is being as-
20 

sessed by the Architect and you have 8 percent by the Corps of Engineers. It sounds excessive. I wonder if, with two supervising 

agencies, we have a duplication of effort. I wonder if you could comment on that. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think I would defer to General Scott on 

this issue, except to say that the basic construction cost, the $41 

million, is about what was approved for the last two book modules 

approved last year, and there is this question of construction oversight fees, as you indicate. 

I would just say briefly that the importance of this can hardly 

be overestimated. It is essential to effect this kind of consolidation 

for the Library’s entire distribution function. It is not just a warehouse; it is a logistics center that will more efficiently do what is 

being done less efficiently at four separate locations at higher costs, 

to be precise. 

LOGISTICS CENTER REVIEW

We plan to discuss on a line by line basis in a very careful way 

all estimated costs with the Architect of the Capitol. But I will 

defer to General Scott, who has been more deeply involved in the 

planning. 

General SCOTT. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The Library is very concerned about the oversight costs and contingency reserves. These are costs as you correctly point out, by the 

AOC and the Corps of Engineers, which we have no control or influence over. However, we have and will continue to engage them 

to ask them to help us look for ways that we can reduce those costs 

and still receive the kind of expert construction oversight that is 

required to put up that facility. 

We also, as Dr. Billington mentioned, will go through a line by 

line study to ensure that any type of savings that we can propose 

will be realized and we can reduce the price. 

One of the other additional costs related to that facility came 

about as a result of concern from some of the citizens of that area 

who wanted there to be more of a look to blend with the neighborhood of the Fort Meade facilities. That has added more money than 

would otherwise be needed. 

So we will revisit all these estimated costs, but in the end we are 

very much concerned about them. We are engaged with the AOC 

and we will appreciate anything the subcommittee can do to help 

us work with the AOC to reduce these costs. 

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT (GPRA)

Senator ALLARD. I am going to have my staff talk with the Corps 

of Engineers as well as the Architect of the Capitol on these administrative costs and express to them my concerns about how high 

they are. 

Now, we do not have the Architect of the Capitol under what is 

referred to as the performance assessment and review tool (PART) 

program. This is the method that the Office of Management and 

Budget uses to measure performance within the agencies of the 

Federal Government. The legislative agencies are not required to 
21 

be under this. Executive branch agencies are required to justify actions and assess results that we can measure here in Congress. 

And if they do not measure very well, it impacts how favorably 

their budget is considered. If they are rated as, for example, ineffective or results not demonstrated, their budget would be cut. 

FEDERAL AGENCY OVERHEAD

So, you are the customer of the Army Corps of Engineers, and 

we will have our staff talk to them. When we have these overhead 

costs, we need to be sure they can justify them, that they are measurable from a customer satisfaction standpoint. Frankly, I want to 

see more of our legislative agencies under that program because as 

legislators and policymakers it gives us the ability to measure performance of the various agencies. 

And while we are on the subject, we would encourage the Library 

of Congress to also look at this kind of accountability when you report to the subcommittee, because it is valuable for policymakers 

and it does help us do a better job for the taxpayers of this country. 

This particular article, just for your information, we got this out 

of Congressional Quarterly, page 538 and 539, so you can look at 

the program if you are not familiar with it. This is an opportunity 

for us to have more accountability and oversight of these agencies. 

I think they are way too high, these administrative costs. 

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT AND LIBRARY

PLANNING

General SCOTT. We certainly appreciate your assistance in this, 

Mr. Chairman. Yes, we too appreciate the value of GPRA standards 

because we have been implementing GPRA since 1997. To a certain 

degree, the cost savings that we have been able to show with this 

2007 budget came as a result of follow-on to GPRA and coming up 

with an annual activity and performance plan. From that plan we 

create the operating plan that we give to the Congress. So we appreciate GPRA, and we certainly appreciate what you might do to 

help us. 

Senator ALLARD. The nice thing about it is you are not necessarily just counting beans. What you do hope to put in place are 

some goals and objectives that are measurable from a consumer 

standpoint: Who is using that agency? Who is using their services? 

And how are those customers’ needs being met? So I think it helps 

us all do a better job in that. We have to measure results. 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS FACILITY

Also, one other question now. You have requested money for this 

logistics warehouse. In the 2005 budget, we had a copyright deposits facility project. Would you explain to me why we now have the 

logistics warehouse that seems to have a higher priority than the 

copyright facility when the copyright facility was requested back in 

the 2005 budget? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, the copyright deposits facility is extremely 

important. It is very difficult to make choices of this kind, but the 

logistics center need is a more immediate one. We are moving 

ahead thanks to the Congress’ approval in 2003 and 2004. This is 
22 

a year of important transition for the Copyright Office. Fiscal year 

2007 is the last year of the reengineering project. The staff must 

relocate for 1 year while their facilities are reconfigured. The logistics issues affect distribution and storage, and the related safety 

and security problems seem to us essential this year. The copyright 

facility, which I think the Library will have to come back for next 

year, is equally important, but perhaps a little bit more deferrable 

because of the redesign that is taking place to facilitate a modular 

construction approach. It will be an essential request next year. It 

is not a lesser priority; it is just a different priority and one that 

fits next year with the overall schedule because of the redesigned 

modular approach. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. General Scott wanted to add to that. 

General SCOTT. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we were asked to take 

another look at the redesign of that copyright deposits facility, 

which we did. Then we only switched priorities temporarily while 

coming up with the redesign, making a determination that it would 

be more advantageous for the Library to go ahead with the logistics 

center at this time rather than with the copyright facility this year. 

INTRODUCTION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Senator ALLARD. I am one legislator who utilizes the agencies 

that are sort of the eyes and ears of the Congress. GAO is one. Another one is the Inspector General. I know that the Inspector General has expressed some concerns about the cost on this and I understand that Mr. Schornagel is here with us today. I would like 

to have him come up if you would, please, and make any comments 

that you care to make about this proposal. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. My name is Karl Schornagel, Inspector General. 

LOGISTICS CENTER REVIEW

As you have already stated, I have concerns about the cost of this 

warehouse. I just learned of the total price a couple weeks ago and 

I expressed concerns immediately. I also raised in March 2005 

some concern about the size of this warehouse. I am in the process 

of getting information from the Library as we speak, and there is 

an important report that is going to be issued by one of the Library’s contractors that should shed some light on this issue. 

Senator ALLARD. When is that supposed to come out? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Next week. 

Senator ALLARD. Next week, okay. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. I also share the Librarian’s concern that the 

whole cadre of storage facilities at Fort Meade is behind schedule 

about 5 or 6 years. There certainly is a need to get some of these 

buildings put up. 

Senator ALLARD. So would you be more specific about some of 

your concerns about cost overruns? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes. I am concerned that about $15 million of 

that $54 million in cost is oversight and contingency. I am especially concerned about multiple layers of oversight. About $7 million of that is for AOC oversight and administration, more than $3 
23 

million for the Corps of Engineers. There is $6 million in reserves 

and contingency, plus another 25 percent in price escalation. 

I also have issues about some of the individual cost components 

of the warehouse itself that range anywhere from microwave ovens 

to the sod for the front lawn. I believe that the whole cost issue 

and approach needs to be reviewed more thoroughly. 

Senator ALLARD. I hope that while you review this project, his 

suggestions will be helpful in trying to figure out ways in which we 

could bring down the cost of this. 

In the past you have raised concerns about poor space management at Library facilities, including the warehouse at Landover—— 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes, that is true. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. That the new facility would replace. Have these concerns been resolved? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, not fully. That is what I mentioned earlier. In March 2005 I issued an audit report that found inefficient 

use of the space. As a result, about 20 percent of the inventory 

items were deleted. These are items that were either excess or obsolete. As part of that audit report, I recommended that the size 

of the new warehouse be reconsidered in light of this new efficiency 

gain and, to my satisfaction that has not fully been addressed yet. 

Senator ALLARD. So we have excess capacity that is being poorly 

managed in the Landover facility? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes, that is true. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. And I have other issues. For example, the reference to the new warehouse is in terms of square feet, but when 

you consider that the proposed warehouse is going to be taller, it 

actually increases the capacity per square foot because you have to 

look at cubic feet. Issues like that are relevant to the plans for this 

new warehouse. 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REALIGNMENT

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for that insight. 

On the CRS realignment, the CRS determined last year that 

some 59 production support, technology support, and audio-visual 

positions were no longer needed and the affected employees were 

offered a buyout in January. Those who did not take the buyout 

could be subject to a reduction in force later this year. 

Can you describe the process that CRS went through to make 

that determination that the positions were not needed, Dr. 

Billington? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I will defer to the Director of the Congressional Research Service to respond in detail. I will point out that 

this is part of the workforce transformation process. The needs of 

the Service to deliver, and particularly to integrate the electronic 

aspects of the Service have been increasing greatly. We need to reconfigure the workforce to deal simultaneously with both the digital component of information delivery, including the successful 

mining of the vast amount of public policy research, as we continue 

our traditional artifactual work. 
24 

So the Library is undergoing very important transformational 

changes currently. I will let the Director of the Service speak more 

directly to the particulars. 

TECHNOLOGY AND STAFFING

Senator ALLARD. Dan Mulhollan, would you like to come up? 

While he is coming up, Dr. Billington, I have to tell you I am 

very sympathetic with your challenges in moving to a high tech operation. Those are huge challenges and they create some obstacles 

as far as managing your workforce. These are challenges we both 

have to face. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Servicing the Congress is our first priority. We 

are the Library of Congress, and making sure that that conversion 

moves ahead so the Service can be as effective, timely, dependable 

and objective as it has always been is a very high priority. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, the high technology requires a higher 

level of expertise and it is more efficient in many ways. The user 

of the Library can more quickly search out the information through 

computer search. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It used to be in the early days of the information revolution that the IT part of an institution was where the expertise would be concentrated. It now has to be developed thoroughly and integrated into the direct service components much 

more seamlessly and much more immediately. I will let the Director speak to the details. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

DIRECTOR

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Mulhollan. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Good morning Senator. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. I appreciate it. 

As a matter of good business practices, CRS reviews its activities 

and positions continually and has for years. What we identified is, 

particularly in the functions of production support and audio-visual 

functions, that the positions we had established in the early 1990s, 

which corresponded to the technical functions at that time, were no 

longer relevant to the technical skills needed with a more sophisticated, centralized IT operating system. For instance, production 

support activities are now seamlessly integrated into network software. Numerous technical support positions had been created to install new hardware as well as software packages and upgrades machine by machine. Now, with ‘‘push’’ technology and a fully integrated network system, those functions no longer are needed. 

We also found an underuse of the Service’s audio-visual functions, as well as the changes in technology. 

Our responsibility is to maintain analytical and research capacity 

and these decisions were based on our ensuring we could do that. 

Given the fact that we had a certain amount of money available, 

workforce reengineering seemed necessary. 

We had announced to staff on September 22, 2005 that we were 

going to eliminate 59 support positions effective September 30, 

2006. To my knowledge, there is not another agency that has given 

their staff 1 year in order to find other jobs. In addition, with your 

help from last year, we offered separation incentives as well as get-
25 

ting early out authority from the Office of Personnel Management 

in order to provide more options to staff. 

Twenty-three of the 59 took full or early retirement with the separation incentive. We have distributed to all staff in CRS the entire 

staffing plan for the remainder of the fiscal year. As of this point, 

three of the administrative positions were filled with affected staff, 

two staff accepted positions elsewhere in the Library. Five of the 

affected staff in those abolished positions have been placed. I anticipate there is some likelihood that some of the remaining affected staff are certainly competitive and may be selected for other 

jobs. Currently there are 31 affected staff remaining who will be 

without a job at the end of September. 

According to our collective bargaining agreement and Library 

regs, if in fact those folks are not in another position by June, the 

Library of Congress will institute a reduction in force. My fondest 

hope is that prior to that time, every one of those people could find 

a job that they find meaningful and good. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Now, that said, one of the things that the Library is seeking your 

help for is approval of an administrative provision that would provide a safety net basically for reduction in force staff of the Library 

of Congress. The new provisions would allow a staff member of the 

Library who is facing a reduction in force to be in the executive 

branch’s priority placement pool, if they want to continue their civil 

service. We would much appreciate your serious consideration of 

that provision. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). With regard to our fiscal year 2006 request, I 

would like to express my gratitude for the Committee’s support. Despite the challenging fiscal environment, Congress found a way to provide some additional assistance in meeting the Service’s mandatory pay and price-level adjustments, research 

materials, and staffing gap. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

The CRS fiscal year 2007 budget request is $104,279,000, consisting of the fiscal 

year 2006 base plus an adjustment for mandatory pay increases for CRS staff, as 

well as the needed price level adjustment for the goods and services we acquire in 

the course of doing our work. 

RESEARCH AGENDA

This past year Congress has functioned under enormous pressures. In addition to 

existing domestic and international issues, lawmakers faced many unanticipated 

policy concerns that drew on already strained resources, such as hurricane-related 

disasters, Supreme Court nominations, and control of mandatory spending through 

the budget-reconciliation process. Pressing issues such as these have required your 

full attention, and the Service has been at your side during these demanding times, 

providing expert research and analysis, grounded in institutional memory, tailored 

to specific needs, and made immediately available. 

The character of the support we offered to the Congress this past year reflects 

the continuing and unbroken history of CRS’ singular mission. We remain steadfast 

in supplying every committee and Member with analysis and evaluation of legislative proposals by identifying all components of the policy issues, estimating the 

probable results, and evaluating alternative options. 
26 

CRS has a research management framework that is structured to align with the 

policymaking needs of the Congress. Service-wide research planning makes possible 

a systematic and coordinated approach that affords important opportunities for 

interdisciplinary collaboration among experts across the Service. At the beginning 

of each congressional session, the Service’s leadership and experts work alongside 

committees and Members, anticipating and identifying the major domestic and 

international policy issues to produce a research agenda. We continually reassess 

that agenda to address unanticipated circumstances. CRS’ ability to respond to unexpected need for its services, while maintaining support for continuing domestic 

and international issues, highlights the depth and breadth of its services. 

Before Hurricane Katrina even made landfall, we had compiled a list of CRS experts and identified the Service’s relevant products, making them immediately 

available on our website. We contacted Members in the affected states and alerted 

them to available CRS support and services. We then assembled teams from relevant disciplines and policy areas to address Congress’ concerns about hurricane victims’ access to assistance; command and control in emergency management; federal 

financing of unprecedented, extended assistance in the form of food, shelter, health 

services, and general income support; challenges to rebuilding; and reestablishment 

of the social and economic stability of the region. CRS experts assessed pre- and 

post-hurricane conditions relevant to policy concerns, critiqued the focus and effectiveness of existing laws and programs, and evaluated policy proposals to bring relief to the area. Through briefings and consultations, in more than one hundred research products, and via specially designed sections of the CRS website, the Service 

provided the Congress with support during this major national disaster, which Congress addressed in more than one hundred hearings. 

Other unanticipated legislative issues required slightly different approaches. For 

example, the Senate was called on for the first time in eleven years to carry out 

its advice and consent responsibilities in the Supreme Court confirmation process. 

However, more than one-half of the Senators and many congressional staff holding 

key positions in the process had no direct experience with such appointments. To 

support them, CRS provided legal expertise, research and analysis, and the insight 

resulting from institutional memory, acquired though several decades of support for 

Supreme Court and other judicial nominations. Through in-person briefings, reports, 

seminars and confidential memoranda, CRS informed Congress about committee 

and floor rules and procedures, the constitutionality of filibusters in relation to judicial nominations, status and prospects for the evolution of areas of law, and a history of congressional experiences with previous Supreme Court nominations. Additionally, aided by the digital scanning operations and the unique collections of the 

Library of Congress, CRS provided searchable online access to congressional documentation, including hearings, floor debates, floor statements, and votes, for eighteen successful and unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations. Most of this documentation, nearly 100,000 pages, had not previously been available digitally. 

In April 2005, Congress adopted a budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 that included instructions to sixteen House and Senate authorizing committees. The instructions called for reductions in mandatory outlays over several years and for tax 

reductions and increased limit on public debt. To assist these committees and the 

Congress as a whole, CRS prepared explanations of budget process, procedures, and 

practices, some of which Congress had not exercised for eight years. Thirty-eight 

percent of the House Members and one-third of the Senate were not in their current 

roles in 1997, which was the last time Congress employed reconciliation to control 

spending. CRS briefed many Members and committees on these procedures. CRS 

also assisted in assessing the overall financial and policy implications of budget reconciliation measures, ranging from the specific options and their implications for 

trimming mandatory spending to the possible impacts on various programs subject 

to proposed changes. 

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

CRS adapts in other areas to uphold our commitment to Congress. Consistent 

with my responsibility to lead an accountable and cost-effective organization and in 

response to congressional directives, CRS not only re-assesses its direct services to 

the Congress, it also continually examines the internal operations supporting that 

service. As Congress has indicated, new technologies can lead to greater efficiency, 

and CRS has completed a long-term study of the impact of information technology 

on our work processes. The resulting analysis indicated that CRS, through workforce re-engineering of some support functions, could reduce the number of support 

staff needed Service-wide and devote more of the resources to the our analytic capacity without any loss in productivity. 
27 

In 2005 CRS completed an examination of our production support, technical support, and audio-visual functions, those support functions most dramatically impacted by technological advancements. After extensive consultation we reached the 

decision to eliminate the outdated functions. The decision affected 59 staff, which 

is about 8.4 percent of the total CRS workforce. To assist these individuals, many 

of whom are long-term CRS employees, the Service announced the decision one year 

in advance, offered a voluntary early retirement option and a congressionally approved separation incentive, and provided continuing retirement and career counseling to the affected staff. This type of workforce self-examination is not new to 

CRS. As a result of similar assessments, CRS has eliminated or curtailed other 

functional activities over the years. Earlier situations also required CRS to eliminate positions, but in the past CRS was able to achieve the down-sizing through attrition. Given the fiscal year 2006 constraints, which require CRS to reduce its staff 

size by almost 30 full-time equivalents, it is not practical for CRS to retain indefinitely these employees, whose functions are not critical to the accomplishment of the 

Service’s mission. It is our hope that the affected staff will either retire or find alternative employment before the functions are eliminated on September 30, 2006. If 

that does not occur, we will institute a reduction-in-force (RIF) in accordance with 

governing Library regulations and our collective bargaining agreement. 

The Library of Congress is requesting the Committee consider an administrative 

provision that would grant Library of Congress employees, including those in CRS, 

who receive a RIF notice eligibility into a pool for displaced employees from all federal agencies for consideration for positions in executive branch agencies. This provision would place Library of Congress employees behind any affected employees in 

an agency undergoing a RIF in selection priority but ahead of applicants who have 

no federal service. Adopting this provision would give the Library’s small pool of 

dedicated legislative branch public servants a broader potential employment base 

and could give employees the opportunity to enhance their civil-service careers beyond the Library of Congress. 

Building on our current performance management system, and in response to 

Congress’ request that legislative branch agencies consider the performance model 

set forth in the Government Performance and Results Act, CRS developed an enhanced system for assessing performance and reporting results to the Congress. The 

plan and reporting system, which are built around our singularly focused mission, 

use the key attributes of relevance, quality, accessibility, and management initiatives as concrete frames of reference for establishing performance goals. The plan 

groups performance goals into two distinct sets: one focused on research and the 

other on management. The management goals are essential to sustaining and improving agency efficiency in resource usage. 

Congress has stated that it expects the legislative branch agencies to find opportunities to realize savings through outsourcing certain activities and functions. The 

Service has permanently outsourced several business functions that are now being 

performed successfully by contractors. These business functions include a centralized copy center, the CRS technology Help Desk, technology user-support services, 

mail and courier services, and receptionist and library technician positions. We have 

just awarded a new contract for the mail and courier services, which includes a revamped performance structure that resulted in the reduction of one contractor staff 

position and two mail clerk positions. We are currently expanding our technology 

Help Desk contract operation to provide extended hours of coverage to CRS staff, 

higher quality services, and a more sophisticated range of services. The Service is 

also expanding its contract support for graphics and product preparation. We are 

continually reviewing all of these operations to ensure the Service’s business needs 

are being met in a manner that provides the best value and efficacy possible. 

In the same spirit of achieving savings to focus our resources on supplying Congress with needed research and analysis, we are curtailing non-mission-critical activities, except as explicitly directed by the Congress. The Service has been working 

with its oversight committees to explore alternative approaches to translation services and to the indexing of congressional publications produced by CRS. In response 

to requests for translations, the Service is seeking to provide referral to outside 

service providers that have been certified by CRS as providing reliable and timely 

responses. Like translation services, the indexing function is largely outside the mission of the Service, and we are consulting with our oversight committees and the 

Joint Committee on Printing to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement with 

the Government Printing Office to assist the Congress with such services. 

However, CRS remains responsive to all congressional needs, even non-mission 

critical ones, when Congress specifically directs us. For example, Congress requested 

CRS provide assistance to the House Democracy Assistance Commission and the 

House International Relations Committee on parliamentary development programs 
28 

in new democracies. CRS country experts are assisting the Commission in its selection of candidate countries. Our country and parliamentary assistance experts have 

been detailed to the House International Relations Committee to travel with Commission staff for needs assessment visits to candidate countries. The Service has 

also been asked to provide assistance to the Georgian, Indonesian, and other parliaments in developing their research services. Further requests for CRS assistance 

are likely to depend on the findings from future needs assessment visits. All travel 

is funded through the House Committee, but we continue to pay staff salaries. CRS 

leadership is carefully assessing this support to ensure that the capabilities of our 

staff remain available to meet other congressional demands. 

CONCLUSION

CRS is responding directly to congressional instruction to submit reasonable budget requests and consider the overall fiscal constraints placed on the entire federal 

budget, to streamline by outsourcing, to leverage existing technology to enhance 

operational efficiency, and to look within for ways to complete our mission. The 

Service is responding to a federal fiscal environment that dictates the size of this 

organization be about 705 full-time equivalents. Cognizant of current fiscal realities 

and heeding congressional direction, the CRS budget request for fiscal year 2007 

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 adjustments 

for goods and services. 

CRS intends to complete the re-engineering of its administrative and support staff 

and will assess the actual impact of these actions, from both fiscal and functional 

perspectives, against the expected results. The Service will likely study other business functions to see if additional streamlining can be achieved and intends to continue its practice of reviewing all major contracts and business operations bi-annually to ensure that the Service’s fiscal resources are being used in the most costeffective and relevant manner possible. The results of these studies and re-engineering efforts are expected to provide meaningful business information that will guide 

the Service’s decision-making and frame future management initiatives. 

While the Service has remained steadfast to its mission and devoted to providing 

quality services to the Congress, CRS cannot afford to be static. An organization 

serving the Congress that is unable to change quickly, alter itself to increase efficiency, or adapt to new requirements is an organization bound to fail. CRS is mindful of this reality and has continually sought out and acted on pragmatic approaches 

that lead to improvements to better fulfill its mission. 

Despite the many changes in Congress and within CRS, the Service of today is 

identical to the Service of 1914 in one way: our dedication to our mission to provide 

balanced, nonpartisan, authoritative expertise to the Congress, on time, on target 

and in forms useful to lawmakers. We will never change the course of our direction. 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REALIGNMENT SAVINGS

Senator ALLARD. So there is approximately $4.4 million in savings, and how is that reflected in the Library’s 2007 budget request? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. You mean the 59 affected staff? Well, to give 

you an example—— 

Senator ALLARD. The savings from that, yes. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes, but part of that savings, I think it cost 

roughly $600,000 to be able to provide a $25,000 separation incentive to each person. We used the balance of those salaries for the 

remainder of that fiscal year to provide the separation incentives, 

as an example. Because we had an overall $3.6 million—excuse 

me—$3.1 million shortfall, if you recall, last fiscal year and the 

committee gave us $1 million of our $3.1 million request to keep 

us at 729 FTEs. So we have requested a permanent reduction to 

705, because we do not have enough money in our base in order 

to sustain the service at the 729. 

As a consequence of this, you recall I mentioned that we were focusing our resources to maintain our analytical capacity. We are 

going to end up with a smaller workforce configuration—maintain-
29 

ing the number of analysts needed to do the research and analytic 

work for the Congress, but fewer overall support staff. 

CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE STAFF

Senator ALLARD. In your testimony you state that extensive consultation took place before you decided to eliminate production support, computer technical support, and audio-visual functions. With 

whom did you consult? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. The individual who did the studies spoke to 

every one of the affected staff in the examination of their positions. 

Senator ALLARD. So the CRS staff was consulted? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. They were interviewed with regard to what 

they were actually doing and what the functions described in their 

position descriptions were. 

Senator ALLARD. This was done before you made your decision, 

I assume? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is correct. They all were able to say, ‘‘this 

is what I do.’’ 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now, there are 31, as you mentioned, 

that still have not landed, so to speak, and could be subject to that 

reduction in force. What action specifically are you taking to work 

with the rest of the Library to find positions for those 31 staff? 

OPTIONS FOR DISPLACED EMPLOYEES

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, first we are continuing to provide career 

counseling and career transition support—how to write a re ́sume ́, 

classes on how to apply for a job in the civil service. That is ongoing and available to each one of those 31 affected staff. 

In addition, we are working closely with the Library of Congress 

and the head of the Library’s human resources services. The Library has a great track record, from prior reduction-in-force events, 

of being able to find positions for those individuals. There is a commitment across the senior management of the Library, for which 

I am quite grateful, to do whatever possible to try to ensure that 

in fact there may be positions. While there are no guarantees, we 

are going to do everything possible to place any remaining staff. 

That is why that approval of our proposed administrative provisions would be helpful for us in the future. 

RETIREMENT INCENTIVES

Senator ALLARD. This is for Dr. Billington. In January about 186 

employees took advantage of an early retirement and buyout incentive offered Library-wide, including the CRS staff we were talking 

about. Can you explain why the buyout was offered, what job functions were eliminated, and how much funding was freed as a result 

of the buyout, and how you are redirecting those funds? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I did not understand the last two points you 

made. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, let’s see. Explain why the buyout was offered and then what job functions were eliminated, and then how 

much funding was freed up as a result of the buyout. Why do we 

not just take them one at a time. Why did you offer the buyout? 
30 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think we will provide, with your agreement, the statistics for the record. I can answer the question in 

general and then we will give you the detailed statistics. 

WORKFORCE TRANSFORMATION

First of all, we have a very large number of people who are eligible to retire. It is an aging workforce. This is the beginning of a 

general workforce transformation process and we wanted to give a 

significant buyout opportunity, which quite a number of people 

took. 

On the day our employees were leaving, I met with many of 

them, and they said they appreciated the buyout. 

It is part of the workforce transformation we are undergoing into 

the digital era. The buyout was a way of offering an opportunity 

to leave, which a great many people took. 

I might point out that in the current budget submission the 

$781,000 is to assist the workforce transformation. We want to develop some newly defined digital competencies. We want to build 

leadership skills for people from the GS–5 to GS–9 category. We 

want to do everything we can to retrain as many staff members as 

possible and expand the range of opportunities. 

This is a direction in which we are trying to move as rapidly as 

we can. We have to also recruit new people from the outside, but 

we really genuinely want to give as much opportunity for other jobs 

in the Library. The Library as a whole is facing a need to transform itself and there cannot be any guarantees, but I want to assure you that the Library as a whole will make every effort to 

make available alternate opportunities for people whose present 

functions are becoming obsolete. We have brought on as the head 

of training somebody who has had experience with one of the more 

successful programs in the Federal Government and we have been 

beefing up that staff. 

We are very concerned about this problem in human terms, but 

at the same time we simply have to move ahead with this kind of 

transformation if the Library is going to continue to serve the Congress and the Nation properly. 

We will provide you statistics and details for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

During fiscal year 2006, the Library requested approval from Congress to offer 

separation incentives and from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to offer 

early retirements. Consistent with the legislation governing these incentives and 

early retirements, the Library indicated that it needed to reshape and renew its 

workforce to match the highly-specialized skill sets that are replacing outmoded 

ways of filling its mission. Both Congress and OPM approved these requests. It 

should be noted that the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (title 13 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107–296), contained an explicit sense 

of Congress that the legislation’s intent was to reshape and not downsize the Federal workforce. Since, 2002, executive branch agencies have used these authorities 

to meet the changing needs of the 21st century. In fiscal year 2005, Congress granted the legislative branch authority comparable to that of the executive branch. Thus 

the Library’s implementation plan is consistent with the purpose of the Act; to reshape—not downsize its workforce. 

The Library’s fiscal year 2006 separation incentive programs addressed specific, 

critical workforce requirements in the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Library Services (LS), and Integrated Support Services (ISS). In the case of CRS, advances in technology, its deployment in the Service, and the technical skill level of 

incoming analytical staff rendered obsolete the services provided by its production 
31 

support staff, technical support assistants, and audio-visual staff. In addition, CRS 

required information professionals who could meet the redefined work, competencies, and skills sets of the Knowledge Services Group, created to better use the 

skills of librarians and other information professionals to serve the needs of Congress. Library Services needed to re-engineer its functions, redesign jobs, retrain 

current staff, and recruit new staff to meet the Library’s digital requirements. For 

example, in the acquisitions and cataloging areas, staff will be required to manage 

digital assets that have distinctive retrieval and preservation requirements—more 

complicated than the traditional handling of printed books and journals. With more 

than 3 billion ‘‘hits’’ on the Web site annually, questions once asked in person are 

now coming from individuals we will never see in person. As a result, reference assistance and more collection curation must be performed online, changing the profile 

of and skills needed from a reference staff. Technological changes have also required 

new skill sets on the part of ISS staff. For example, printing is now created with 

sophisticated computerized tools and electronically transmitted with customer-driven requirements that generate high-impact graphics and images unimagined only 

a few years ago. Similarly, facility operations staff must have technical expertise to 

monitor buildings adequately and effectively with the sophisticated and integrated 

systems required by today’s high technology workforce. 

Approximately $16 million supported the salaries and benefits of the 186 employees participating in the early out and buyout programs. Redirection of this funding 

will enable the Library to hire new staff more quickly rather than waiting for current staff to retire at some unknown point in the future, increase contract support 

capacity—in areas where flexibility in staff support is needed as business plans 

evolve and are implemented, and invest in new equipment needed to support our 

innovative programs. This funding, combined with the $781,000 requested for workforce transformation, will ensure that the Library has the tools—that include not 

only separation incentives and early retirements, but also staff training, mentoring, 

career planning and counseling and digital competency skills development, needed 

to implement an integrated workforce renewal plan. The success of this plan is highly dependent on the resources available to carry out each part of the plan. If funding 

and FTEs are stripped away, the Library will be in a worse position than had we 

waited for employees to retire—a time line that was already impeding the Library’s 

digital transition and transformation. 

IMPACT OF RETIREMENTS

Senator ALLARD. The detail of these questions that we are asking 

is to provide us a thorough and complete answer. So the rest of the 

question on what job functions were eliminated and how much 

funding was freed up as a result of the buyout and how you are 

redirecting those funds, we would like to have a detailed answer 

on that. If you do not have that information in front of you now, 

we will give you a chance to give us a written response. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, sir. 

Did you want to add anything? 

General SCOTT. No, I think that is the most appropriate way to 

handle it. 

Senator ALLARD. Is that fine, General Scott? 

General SCOTT. Yes, sir. 

COPYRIGHT REENGINEERING PROGRAM

Senator ALLARD. Let me move on to the copyright reengineering. 

Now, that office has been engaged in a 6-year effort to overhaul its 

work processes, a project which involves major space renovation. 

The subcommittee provided over $9 million in the fiscal year 2006 

budget for temporary office space and renovation of the existing 

space in the Madison Building. The effort now is 6 months behind, 

I am told. 

Why has it been delayed and what is the impact on cost and is 

the project now on track for completion in 2007? 
32 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It is on track now. The delay was caused because of the difficulty the General Services Administration (GSA) 

had in finding a place that could house the Copyright Office for 

only 1 year instead of the conventional longer term lease, while the 

final stages of the reengineering were taking place. There were 

three different changes of locations resulting in changes to design 

specifications and so forth. There was a delay, but it is on track 

now and we are expecting that in July of this year, they will move 

out to another location in Crystal City and in July of the following 

year, they will be back in their full reengineered mode. 

Meanwhile, the pilots and electronic registration are on track, if 

you want details, we have Julia Huff—the Register is unfortunately not available to be here today, but Julia Huff from the Copyright Office can answer this. 

REENGINEERING PROJECT DELAYS

Senator ALLARD. In your efforts in working with the Architect of 

the Capitol and GSA, what could prevent the type of problems you 

have encountered in future projects of this kind? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, General Scott, do you want to address 

that? 

General SCOTT. I have got some general ideas, but I think it 

would be best if we could hear from Julia, who has really been intimately involved in trying to re-schedule and keep things on track 

that mostly were way beyond the Library’s control. Is Julia here? 

Ms. HUFF. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Julia, do you want to give the lessons learned? 

Ms. HUFF. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will. One thing that might have 

helped—we started working with GSA in early 2004, and we probably would have benefited from having our own project manager 

onboard at that time, and we did not add that project manager 

until 2005. He, along with the facilities team, has really kept on 

top of GSA and tried to move them along. 

The lesson we have learned from GSA is that they have a very 

structured, layered organization and it just takes more time than 

we anticipated to get paperwork approvals, negotiations, and the 

like moved through all required steps. 

Senator ALLARD. In short, they are bureaucratic? 

Ms. HUFF. Yes, you might say that. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Ms. HUFF. They did not really respond immediately to our request for leased space. When they did, the space was too small, and 

then they switched buildings on us twice in Crystal City. All of this 

caused delays in the design. We had to do redesigns of the architectural work, for electrical work, for voice and data. We incurred 

more costs and delays because of these changes. 

So yes, we are behind and it is because of the facilities piece. We 

might have started in 2003, but 2 years seemed like plenty of lead 

time when we first began. 

NATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER—CULPEPER STATUS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. 

On the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center. The Library 

will be taking possession of this new National Audio-Visual Con-
33 

servation Center in early 2007. I really appreciate the opportunity 

to go out and tour that center, and I think we are all very appreciative of the Packard Foundation and all they have done as far as 

providing citizens of this country a very good facility. 

I would just like to have an update on what the status is of this 

privately funded construction project, and then once it is operational do we have any idea what the annual operations and maintenance costs might be for that? I want to make sure we are making allowances for that in future budgets. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We can try to give you a precise estimate. 

[The information follows:] 

The Library’s five-year request to Congress to acquire the new equipment and 

staff resources necessary to operate the NAVCC concludes in fiscal year 2008. Full 

initial operations will begin in fiscal year 2009, and ongoing annual costs beginning 

that year will be approximately $23.4 million for the Library. This estimate does 

not include the AOC’s operating and maintenance costs for this facility. This estimate includes $11.4 million for salaries and benefits of the 139 Motion Picture, 

Broadcasting and Recorded Sound (MBRS) employees, 127 of which will be located 

at the Culpeper facility, $7 million for preservation digitization, $3.5 million for 

storage, and $1.5 million for infrastructure support. The operating capacities reflected in these costs were established based on our urgent need to preserve at-risk 

national heritage collections dating back nearly 120 years, as well as the need to 

begin ingesting significant new born-digital works. Fortunately, the proven technologies to achieve this have recently become available, and the Packard Humanities Institute’s gift of the state-of-the-art NAVCC facility will allow the Library to 

take advantage of these technologies for the first time. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We were actually applying for less money for 

this because there was significant reduction in FTEs from last 

year, because a lot of that was for the transition period, where we 

had to install things in sequence and that required a little bit of 

a buildup in the last couple of years. 

We can give you an estimate of how it looks. The current situation is that in November they turned over the ownership of the 

central plant to the Architect of the Capitol. This is a complex operation because the work is basically being done by the Packard Humanities Institute, but we are putting in the infrastructure. In December they turned over the ownership of the collections building 

to the AOC for occupancy by the Library and we have already 

begun moving staff and collections—we have six collection maintenance employees now out there working, and the first collection 

items just this past month were moved from Capitol Hill. The remaining collections will be staged for relocation from many different storage locations to be centralized into one location throughout this calendar year. 

Construction continues on the conservation building and the nitrate vaults. The conservation building is where most of the staff 

will be moved. We will be saving $500,000 of annual lease costs, 

starting in 2008 as a result of the collections being moved to 

Culpeper. 

NATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER—PACKARD

CONTRIBUTION

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say exactly what the cost contribution 

from the Packard Humanities Institute will be, but it looks like it 

will be the largest single private capital contribution to a Government building in history. We have to confirm that. It would not be 
34 

if you multiplied by inflationary factors. But it is a very, very major 

contribution. 

We think that the base will probably not be very different from 

what it is once we get over this bump. I will try to give you as precise estimates as we can of what is anticipated. It is going to be 

really quite an amazing facility. One thing that is particularly interesting and important about this for the long-range cost is that 

the capacity is so great out there that we should be able to accommodate for many, many years to come, even decades to come, the 

anticipated storage need. It is also the first facility that will have 

digital storage capability, so this is very, very important. It will reflect the standards that Congress asked the Library to establish 

some years back for audio-visual conservation. It will be the largest 

and the most up to date facility of its kind anywhere. 

By this time next year it ought to be functioning, when it is finally conveyed from the Packard Humanities Institute through the 

Architect of the Capitol to the Library for its usage. 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

Senator ALLARD. I want to press you a little bit on the Government Performance and Results Act. I would like to have you 

present this subcommittee with a few examples of how the Library 

measures its program performance and makes budget decisions 

based on program effectiveness. 

I want something specific. So if you can answer that question for 

us if you are prepared to. I suspect you may not be, and you could 

present us a written presentation about some specific programs 

where you are applying it and making administrative decisions 

based on what you are seeing on the performance objectives. 

[The information follows:] 

Since 1997, the Library has used the GPRA model as a guide in developing and 

implementing its strategic plans and annual operating plans and performance reports. Library programs have made significant progress in developing goals and objectives that focus on measurable outcomes rather than outputs. Consistent with 

GPRA requirements, the Library is once again reviewing and revising its strategic 

plan which will include major changes to its goals, performance measures and targets, and assessment systems. 

As part of the Library’s annual budget process, each office reviews their base resources to determine if additional investments are needed to support the Library’s 

goals and objectives. Over the past few years, this review has become increasingly 

important, as the transition to the digital age has required ongoing reengineering 

of our work processes. Based on congressional direction and cognizant of Federal 

budget realities, the Library took a hard look within and across organizations in determining its resource requirements for fiscal year 2007. As a result, our fiscal year 

2007 budget request reflects only a 4 percent increase over fiscal year 2006, and a 

net decrease in FTEs—reflecting mostly mandatory pay and price level increases. 

Despite these limits on our budget request, the Library will continue to maintain 

relevance in the digital age with enhanced strategic planning and workforce transformation. 

Some examples of how Library program offices applied GPRA principles in administrative and budget decisions include the following: 

Copyright Office 

As a standard practice, the Copyright Office monitors productivity and staffing 

levels and adjusts hiring and overtime decisions based on trends in receipts, productivity, processing time and amounts of work in process. Based on these reviews, the 

Copyright Office has taken actions such as cross-training staff to perform work in 

areas needing assistance, focused overtime in areas where processing time was 

longer, prioritized hiring for areas that were lagging in production. These decisions 
35 

were factors in a more than 50 percent reduction in average processing time for registrations since 2001. 

The Copyright Reengineering Project is a multi-year effort to improve Copyright’s 

business processes based on an analysis of its current services to the public. With 

the reengineering study recommendations, the Copyright Office developed a multiyear planning and budgeting strategy to reconfigure its current facilities, build a 

new IT system, and reorganize its staff within the new business processes. After the 

implementation of the reengineered processes and based on processing times, productivity rates and customer satisfaction findings, the Copyright Office will determine whether to reduce staffing in areas identified as overstaffed, reallocate and reassign staff based on workload across all areas and/or modify functions. One or all 

of these actions may result in changes in future budget requests. 

The Copyright Office planned for a significant reduction in renewal fee receipts 

in fiscal year 2006 and beyond. The number of renewals has decreased over the past 

several years based on statutory changes that made renewal registration voluntary. 

As a result, the Copyright Office has requested a permanent decrease in its offsetting collections authority and a reduction of five FTEs in fiscal year 2007. The Copyright Office also determines its fees using activity-based costing methodologies to review costs of providing services while giving due consideration to the purposes of 

the copyright system and the statutory requirement that the fees be fair and equitable. As a result of this review, the Copyright Office submitted a new fee proposal 

to Congress on March 1, 2006. 

Congressional Research Service 

In early January-May 2005, CRS undertook three comprehensive studies of support areas: Production and Administrative Support, Technical Support Assistants, 

and Audio-Visual Support. The objectives of the studies were to identify the services 

and tasks currently performed by these support groups, determine the extent to 

which the services and tasks met the broader CRS staff support needs, identify any 

unmet support needs, and determine the most efficient and effective ways to satisfy 

all support needs in the aforementioned areas vis-a-vis the Service’s investments in 

technology. For the past few years, these support functions were carried out by approximately 59 staff, at an fiscal year 2006 estimated cost of $4.4 million. 

To accomplish these objectives, CRS reviewed the position descriptions for staff 

working in the support areas and, to ensure consistency, developed structured questions to collect needed data from a range of staff and using several methodologies. 

CRS conducted numerous interviews with mid- and senior-level managers, support 

staff in all three areas, and other staff who utilized the support services. Based on 

the data collected via document reviews, meetings, consultations, and interviews, 

CRS compiled comprehensive lists of the support services and tasks performed in 

each support area. Afterwards, study participants (i.e. managers, support staff, and 

users of the support services) were given copies of the lists and asked to verify the 

extent and frequency which the support staff performed the identified services/tasks. 

The analysis supporting these studies led the Service’s leadership to recognize 

that the services and tasks provided by the 59 positions had been overtaken by advances in technology (desktop tools and operating environment) and were no longer 

needed. The analysis demonstrated that new and different services and tasks were 

needed; therefore leading to a workforce re-engineering of the administrative staff. 

CRS has announced its intention to abolish the 59 outdated positions, effective September 30, 2006. The Service has also developed a cadre of fewer and new positions 

that will provide administrative support. 

The Service’s current budget can afford approximately 705 FTEs; however with 

the 2006 one percent rescission and the prospect of a similar action in 2007, CRS 

may need to adjust its FTE estimated ceiling down again. Retaining the 59 staff 

indefinitely would have adversely impacted the Service’s ability to sustain an analytic capacity of between 335 and 350 staff while at the same time adjusting its total 

workforce to the 705 ceiling. The long-term results of the CRS workforce re-engineering will be to free up FTEs and funding which can be redirected to maintain 

the needed level of analytic capacity for the Congress. 

For several years, CRS has maintained a business activity that provides courier 

delivery and pick-up services directly to and from all Congressional member offices, 

Congressional committee offices, the Capitol and CRS Research Centers as well as 

intra-Service mail pick-up and delivery. The operation has been staffed with a combination of contractor personnel and CRS staff—and at the time of the review 

(early- to mid-2005), the operation was staffed with 11.5 contractor personnel (including an on-site supervisor) at an annual cost of $432,000 and three CRS mail 

clerks at an annual cost of $131,500, for a total cost for this business activity of 

$563,500. The contract was at the end of its five-year life; and, as a result, CRS 
36 

took advantage of an opportunity to analyze fully the current workload statistics 

data as a means of updating the contract to better reflect the new ways in which 

CRS communicates with and provides information to the Congress—increasingly via 

electronic means. 

CRS staff gathered, assimilated and analyzed historical financial cost information 

on each element of the work performed under this contract. They conducted extensive interviews with an on-site supervisor, particularly regarding tasks performed, 

methods employed, and operating procedures; staff toured the facilities, witnessed 

operations, conducted survey-level time and motion studies, spoke with the couriers, 

and discussed problems encountered and solutions developed; staff interviewed the 

CRS Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) regarding services performed under the contract, the history of the contractual services, and the performance of the contractor as well as performance standards prior to outsourcing; staff 

gathered, assimilated, and analyzed month-by-month statistical data, from 1999 

through 2005 including: delivery of packages and books to Congressional offices 

(CRS provides this service the entire Library of Congress), pick-up of packages and 

books from Congressional offices, sorting and bundling of non-rush Congressional 

mail and delivery to House and Senate Post Offices, preparation of mail for Congressional district offices, and sorting of CRS mail. 

The study concluded that the activity continues to provide a vital service which 

supports the core mission of CRS—basic to meeting the needs and fulfilling the requests of Congress and Congressional staff for information. Customer surveys, from 

both Congressional and CRS staff, reflected a high satisfaction level with both the 

service and the performance of the contractor. However, the workload statistics data 

confirmed that the number of items exchanged via the courier service had been, and 

continues to decline each year. The analysis revealed that the services could likely 

be performed by one, and possibly two, less personnel. 

The study results provided CRS staff with substantive data that produced a renegotiated contract with ten contractor personnel and one CRS staff—a total annual 

cost reduction of $84,000 which has been redirected back into the Service’s overall 

budget. 

CRS has for many years maintained a contractor-operated technology help desk. 

The contract covered four highly skilled personnel to provide immediate desktop 

services to CRS staff. While there was no debate about the on-going need for desktop services given CRS’s reliance on technology tools, this contract was at the end 

of its five-year life and warranted a thorough review in order to redefine the scope 

of work and level of expertise needed to match the technology environment of 2006 

and beyond. This study was conducted at about the same time as the functional review of approximately 18 Technical Support Assistants. 

The review began with an examination of the contract documentation, contractor 

workload statistics, monthly billings over the life of the contract, interviews with 

CRS program personnel, principally the COTR, to gather data on such questions as 

the services provided under the contract, the need for the activity, the definition of 

successful service delivery, methods and factors used to evaluate the contractor’s 

performance. The financial data and contractor workload statistics were analyzed. 

The review included an assessment of contractor levels, current workload and the 

real cost of the activity, including the CRS management overhead, contractor management fees, and the cost of CRS staff with greater technical expertise at the GS– 

14 level who handle escalated service calls which are outside the scope of the help 

desk contract. Based on the review of documentation, interview data, and financial 

information, alternative methods of performing the activity were developed and a 

cost and benefits alternatives analysis was prepared. 

On the surface, the viable alternatives costed out within $50,000 per year of each 

other; however, best business practices support that contracts typically provide the 

better short-term solution when the environment is changing. The Service’s recent 

need for expanded help desk hours of coverage to better match the work hours of 

CRS analysts and information professionals (from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.) is one example of needed flexibility. Another example is the need for expanded expertise to 

help integrate new software and operating systems into the Service’s products, e.g., 

with sophisticated graphics and tables. The entire technology environment in CRS 

is undergoing a major transformation as the Service moves to a new authoring and 

publishing system. A contract will ensure that CRS has the flexibility to respond 

quickly to the specific work skills needed by the Service and to keep pace with continuing changes/advances in the field. This kind of flexibility could not be achieved 

with federal employees employed under specific job classifications, grade levels, or 

in a union environment, such as CRS, where ‘‘changes in work conditions’’ are generally bargainable. Even changes in work hours cannot be effected easily with CRS 

employees in the bargaining unit. 
37 

The new help desk contract will be awarded within the next few months. 

Library Services 

After analyzing its in-house costs for processing the same materials and seeking 

to reduce its costs, the Library contracted with its Italian book vendor to supply 

shelf-ready books. These books arrived at the Library fully cataloged, labeled and 

ready to be added to the collections for immediate use. As a result, three acquisitions staff were freed up to be reassigned to other critical processing tasks. The Library expects to use this model to expand to other book vendors for future contracts 

to continue to reduce its processing costs. 

Taking advantage of the functionality of the Web, the Library implemented a Web 

based exchange program to enhance its acquisition of materials through exchange. 

Stemming from a business process improvement project, the program improves the 

Library exchanges with its partners; reduces Library staff time needed to manage 

and execute the program; reduces space needed to store the duplicate material to 

be offered on exchange; and reduces the number of times items are physically handled. The Library’s new Web program—which now has over 740 participants—facilitates its ability to receive reciprocal items from the exchange partners to help build 

its collections at much reduced costs. In fiscal year 2005, the Library’s acquisitions 

divisions received 148,696 pieces from its exchange partners. 

The Cataloging in Publication (CIP) Program was established in 1971 to provide 

advance cataloging copy for publications most likely to be acquired by the Nation’s 

libraries. Since the Program’s inception, Library staff have produced catalog records 

for 1.3 million titles, saving public and research libraries the cost of creating these 

records. As an efficiency measure, the Program—which has over 5,000 publishers 

that submit their prepublication data—has made the transition to electronic processing using the Web. The Electronic CIP Program (ECIP)—which now has over 

3,600 publishers participating—has saved staff time (equal to three full time staff), 

has dramatically reduced throughput time for processing titles, and has overall reduced the per title cost of processing CIP titles. The Library saves annually $10,000 

in postage as a result of not having to mail cataloging data in print form to the 

publishers. ECIP has enabled the Library to achieve additional savings by having 

other research libraries take on the cataloging of preprint publications—Cornell 

University and Northwestern University currently contribute annually approximately 200 cataloged titles. 

The Library’s bibliographic access divisions have analyzed the costs of producing 

a catalog record. The costs are driven by both the complexity of the cataloging rules 

and procedures and by the level of staff who create the records. To address the latter, the Library instituted a pilot in one of its divisions to have technicians use catalog records produced by other libraries as the basis for the Library of Congress 

record. Using lower level staff has yielded measurable gains. The division’s production of copy cataloging increased by thirty percent between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 (from 9,725 titles to 12,670). Concomitant to the division’s increase 

in copy cataloging output was a one-third decrease in the number of hours devoted 

to more expensive full, original cataloging between the two fiscal years (from 67,582 

hours to 57,231). This model will serve in planning fuller scale use of technicians 

for processing functions commensurate with their level of expertise. 

The Library has worked with the library community to reduce the complexity and 

cost of producing catalog records. In collaboration with the library community, an 

analysis was done of the record content with a goal of removing elements that were 

not necessary to provide satisfactory service to users seeking information. The resulting record, ‘‘a core level catalog record,’’ reduces the cost for cataloging per item 

by as much as 43 percent. The Library has now adopted the core level record as 

its default catalog record. These records meet the needs of end user while meeting 

the needs of other libraries to provide access to their collections. 

In fiscal year 2005 Library Services contracted with an information services research firm to assist with a strategic assessment of the needs and expectations of 

the National Library’s constituents. A nationwide survey is currently underway to 

gather data that will be used in the process of assessing the effectiveness of National Library programs. The results from this and other data-collection efforts will 

inform future Library Services administrative decisions. 

RESULTS-BASED DECISIONMAKING

General SCOTT. Yes, sir. We could answer the question now, but 

in the interest of time, I would—— 

Senator ALLARD. We have time. 
38 

General SCOTT. The way the Library implements its planning 

process is the Librarian each year issues guidance to each one of 

the program offices within the Library, and he gives his objectives 

and goals around which the other programs have to respond and 

then come up with theirs. The offices will come up with an annual 

plan, and that annual plan is based upon the measurable task, 

where possible. Now, all the tasks cannot be measured, but where 

they can be measured, offices list those tasks that will be accomplished. 

Then when the budget has been put together, those tasks and 

those goals become part of our operating plan that we submit to 

the Congress. 

In addition to coming up with the annual plan, we also have for 

the senior managers, a performance evaluation system that reflects 

what goals and objectives they have worked on and achieved during the past calendar year. Those objectives and goals are very specific and do tie back to the budget. 

Senator ALLARD. Can you give us some examples of where there 

was not adequate performance for one reason or another? 

General SCOTT. There was inadequate? 

Senator ALLARD. Where there was not adequate performance and 

because of inadequate performance maybe you reduced that function, perhaps shifted dollars to another area of the Library where 

there was better performance. Can you think of some examples like 

that in your budget? 

General SCOTT. I cannot off the top of my head give you an example of that. 

Senator ALLARD. That is what we are looking for. It is those 

kinds of administrative decisions that you may have been making 

in the Library of Congress, where they actually had an impact on 

how you managed the program. Maybe you took some money from 

it because you perceived the performance could have been better 

and should have been better and you had to reevaluate it. Perhaps 

you had another area over here where you saw a need, where they 

were meeting the goals and objectives, and maybe shifted a little. 

We are looking for some specific examples of applications. You 

are saying the right things, but we are just looking for areas you 

can point to where you actually used that to make administrative 

decisions. 

General SCOTT. Yes, sir, we understand and we will get you some 

examples. 

Senator ALLARD. If you feel like you need some help in outlining 

that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) does a good job 

on objectives and making some decisions on that. Maybe to consult 

with them might be helpful in tailoring what we are looking for as 

far as program guidance. Okay? 

General SCOTT. Yes, sir, we will do that. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS PROGRAM

Senator ALLARD. On to the Books for the Blind and Physically 

Handicapped. You have been working on it for several years to develop what we call a digital talking book to replace the current cassette-type system, to make books available to the blind. Over the 
39 

next several years, approximately $75 million will be requested to 

produce the new machines. 

In fiscal year 2006 you plan to spend $12 million to purchase the 

old machines which will soon become obsolete. Why do we need to 

purchase any additional cassette machines in 2006 when I am told 

there are over 700,000 cassette machines currently in circulation, 

inventory, or repair? Then maybe during this you might talk a little bit about the status of the new plan. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I think we will ask Mr. Kurt Cylke, who is the 

Director of that program, up. But I just want to say that we have 

to maintain the service and we have to maintain the inventory during the transition. We are on the schedule that has been long established by Mr. Cylke and by the service, but we cannot have a 

drop in the current analog service until the digital program is operational. We are asking for a $19 million startup. That was what 

was always intended. That is not a change in the plan. 

We cannot have a drop-off in the service in the meantime. Mr. 

Cylke can elaborate. 

CASSETTE MACHINE REPLACEMENT

Senator ALLARD. Do we have cassette recorders over here that 

could be repaired, that we could put in without having to buy new 

ones during this transition period? 

Mr. CYLKE. We have, Mr. Chairman. We have approximately 

740,000 cassette machines in the field. Many of them—most of 

them, of course, are in use by individuals. There are a certain number of inventory and then there are a certain number being repaired. 

Let me get to your original question of why we are buying machines in 2006. Working very closely with the Inspector General, 

we had a study performed that projected out the needs for the cassette machine until we can get into the digital program. We have 

23 million copies of books in libraries and warehouses around the 

United States. We have the 700,000 machines using them and we 

are going into the digital age. 

As you heard from Dr. Billington, we are proposing to request 

$19.1 million a year for the next 4 years into the budget to permit 

us to buy those digital machines, and then withdraw the additional 

funds from the budget and go on. However we need cassette machines to keep the people who are in the program now able to use 

the millions of books and magazines that are available. 

Senator ALLARD. Would you agree with these figures: We have 

about 133,517 available for loan from the Library? 

Mr. CYLKE. That is correct. 

Senator ALLARD. So that we have a total of 720,000—— 

Mr. CYLKE. Something close to that. That is correct. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. And then an additional 42,000 machines 

you are planning on buying in 2006? 

Mr. CYLKE. That is correct. As a matter of fact, I believe the contract will be signed today or tomorrow. Again, what we did was 

make an in-depth study of the number of machines that we would 

require to keep the cassette program going until we can get into 

the digital program. This is our final buy of machines. 
40 

This report was done by an outside contractor, reviewed by Mr. 

Schornagel, the Inspector General, and his staff. Suggestions were 

made and the number of machines, the 40,000 plus, was based on 

a review with the Inspector General. 

Senator ALLARD. Then you are just going to flat drop off a cliff 

so to speak? 

ANALOG-DIGITAL TRANSITION

Mr. CYLKE. There will be no future purchase. That is it. We have 

been in the cassette program from the early 1970s, but this is our 

last purchase of cassette machines. 

Senator ALLARD. And you are going to phase these out? 

Mr. CYLKE. They are going to be phased out, but the new machines that come in—again, we have millions of copies of books on 

the shelves for use in the cassette format. All these books for the 

last 2 years and into the future will be in digital masters. The digital machine will be available to us in the beginning of 2008 and 

it just depends on how much money or how the funds are made 

available by the Congress as to how many we can build. 

But we would expect to buy over a 4-year period the great bulk 

of those machines. 

Senator ALLARD. Are these machines that you have now in a format that can easily be transferred over to the digital format? 

Mr. CYLKE. The machines are not—the machines are analog cassette machines. They are four-track, half-speed cassette machines. 

But the analog books that are available on the shelves we are converting at a rate of a couple of thousand a year of the more important titles. Now, obviously in a public library environment many of 

the books would not be replaced. But we are converting things like 

the classics where we have them and going through what we call 

an A to D process, analog to digital. 

We should have 20,000 digital books by 2008. That would be reconversion as well as new books that have been mastered that way. 

Senator ALLARD. The public will use the analog and the new ones 

that you are going to put on the digital? 

Mr. CYLKE. Digital only. 

Senator ALLARD. Digital only? 

Mr. CYLKE. Well, analog and digital for 1 or 2 years. 

Senator ALLARD. But then as those others get used up, then you 

will put them on digital; is that your plan? 

Mr. CYLKE. If I understand what you are saying, would the 23 

million copies be converted. We will convert only the ones that will 

be of continuing use. In other words, every year we do a certain 

number of fiction items, best sellers. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. CYLKE. They certainly would not—old best sellers would certainly not be converted. I do not want to offend anyone, but—— 

Senator ALLARD. You do not want to offend anybody’s favorite 

book here. 

Mr. CYLKE. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, I want to refer to the IG here. Do you 

have some comments on this program? Do you think that we are 

going in the right direction? Can you comment on that? 
41 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS AUDIT

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes, I do. My office issued an audit report on 

this program back in 2002 that deals a lot with the issues that you 

are raising and recommended that a formal analysis be done to 

bridge the transition from the analog to the digital technology and 

reduce the number of purchases of new machines, and that has 

been done; and also to increase the repairs of the used machines. 

My office has been very actively involved in the last few years 

in supporting cost analysis and negotiation strategies with this contractor, and has resulted in several million dollars in savings. I 

think that the old analog machine purchases are necessary. The 

fact that we are going to cut it off, we really could not justify paying higher unit costs to buy smaller quantities in 2007 and beyond. 

It is going to be 2014 to 2017 before these old analog machines 

are completely phased out. People have a tendency to want to hang 

onto them and not want to change technologies. So I think that the 

strategy and the fact that Mr. Cylke is getting the full life out of 

all the old machines that the taxpayers are supporting the purchase of is really a reasonable approach. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

Senator ALLARD. Let us move on to the Capitol Visitor Center 

(CVC) tunnel. There was a report in Roll Call just this last Tuesday on page 3 that part of the tunnel project might be paid for out 

of private funds. Is this an accurate report and would you like to 

comment on that article, Dr. Billington? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. That is not an accurate report. The quote 

of the CVC spokesman was erroneous. The spokesman himself told 

my chief of staff yesterday that he had been misquoted and had already issued a correction. The Library of Congress was not contacted by the reporter about the article before it was written, so the 

issue might have been cleared up before publication. 

Let me make it very clear. We understand and have always understood that the cap of $10 million is firm and we have never requested any changes to the construction of the tunnel. We have always understood this appropriated amount to be a very firm limitation. The Architect of the Capitol has given us full assurances that 

the $10 million appropriated will fully cover the costs of the construction and Jefferson Building changes as presently proposed. 

I could go into more detail if you want. 

Senator ALLARD. I just want you to clear the record and make 

sure you are comfortable that we have the facts on record. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. The original appropriation allocation was 

$10 million. We understand that the AOC has spent $5.1 million 

for tunnel construction, which includes a $200,000 contingency, and 

that just recently they have put out a contract for $4 million for 

changes, that was issued just last week. 

That leaves a balance of $900,000 for contingency, which is well 

under the $10 million cap. 

Senator ALLARD. Any problem with that cap? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We do not see any problems with it, and we are 

not requesting any changes or additions. 
42 

Senator ALLARD. I would expect that with the opening of the 

Capitol Visitor Center you are going to get more visitors, more people wanting to visit the Library of Congress. You are not going to 

have to negotiate across the street and you will probably get more 

members as well as more visitors wanting to use that tunnel. 

Are you expecting a large increase in visitors and are you doing 

anything to try and accommodate that? 

CELEBRATION OF AMERICAN CREATIVITY

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. We have been looking into this in some detail. The estimate has been given that as many as 3.5 million people will be coming into the new visitors center. We want to use the 

public spaces of the Jefferson Building as the focal point for additional visitors to the Library. We have done some very careful analysis and planning, with a lot of consultation, all, I might add, on 

nonappropriated funds. This is all being done with private funding—what we will do to prepare for more visitors will depend on 

what we can raise from private funding. 

The idea will be to celebrate and illustrate and involve people in 

one of the most important contributions that the Congress of the 

United States has made to the American people. No other government in the world has as consistently and as fully preserved the 

private sector creativity of its people as has the United States, and 

in particular the legislative branch of Government. 

Once the Copyright Office was placed in the legislative branch of 

Government, we were able to retain in the Library’s collection as 

closely as possible the mint record of American creativity. By housing innumerable collections, we have way over 5 million pieces of 

music, we have the world’s largest collection of movies, nearly 1 

million movies and moving image titles—these are amazing accomplishments that the Congress has achieved. We want to celebrate 

this, which we think will supplement and round out the story of 

the Congress and of its governance, its oversight and legislative 

functions, which will be illustrated in the Jefferson Building’s expanded exhibits. 

We think this will be an important illustration, calling attention 

to a great achievement of Congress, which we have been fortunate 

enough to be the custodians and administrators of. This summer 

we are bringing in interns to find and illustrate more things in the 

copyright deposits that can be celebrated and realized. We will use 

our public spaces, without interfering with the traditional usages 

of the Library, to in a dignified way both introduce visitors to the 

importance of knowledge and to give them some experience of creativity. This experience will be richly illustrated, not only by the 

artists and the performers, but also by the inventors and the other 

scientists and inventors that made America the creative country it 

is. The creative use of freedom, and the Congress’ crucial role in 

preserving this record of creativity will be the main thing we are 

going to be illustrating and celebrating. 

Senator ALLARD. I think you have a great facility there. As you 

know, my wife uses that Library personally—we go over there and 

walk the halls and do the searches through the computer and 

through your catalogue. I think a lot of Members send their staff 

over, but we will wander over there personally. I would agree that 
43 

it is a great facility. We should be very proud of it. We are privileged in this country to have that kind of a facility available for us. 

So we want to do everything we can to help make it better and 

continue to make it meet the needs of the American people. 

WORLD DIGITAL LIBRARY

Let me move on. I want to talk a little bit about the World Digital Library. In November the Library entered into a cooperative 

agreement with Google to develop a World Digital Library. Apparently Google is contributing $3 million to this effort. Could you update us on this project? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I think this is very exciting. As you know, we 

had close to 4 billion electronic transactions last year. Our American Memory website has brought more than 10 million items of 

American history and culture online. We are continuing to augment 

that with materials that highlight creativity and the culture. In 

fact, there will be a connection between the website and exhibit 

space within the Jefferson Building. The visitors experience will include an invitation to use our educational website as well. 

What we are adding here, again with this important startup private money which is purely philanthropic—it is a nonexclusive arrangement—is putting the memory of other cultures online. 

It is important to dramatize to the world, both to help America 

understand the cultures of foreign countries, with whom we are 

more and more involved, our already large educational website and 

training, facilitating its educational use, to provide windows into 

world cultures. We are going to begin with pilot projects with other 

countries. We are going to launch the World Digital Library very 

carefully, as we did with the American Memory project that began 

our educational and inspirational online presence. 

PARTNERSHIPS WITH NATIONAL LIBRARIES

We are going to do it jointly. We already have agreements with 

six other national libraries to do joint projects. Our original project 

with the Russians, which was funded and initiated by congressional action, is approaching 1 million items. We are getting great 

cooperation from them. They are giving us access to nearly everything we want. 

So we have had a successful startup with special funds, and now 

agreements with a wide variety of countries—our most recent 

agreement is with the National Library of Egypt. I was just in 

Egypt and we are going to expand that collaboration. We have in 

our collections the history of Islamic science, which is something 

that has been well preserved, not just in Egypt but also in America 

and in the Library of Congress. 

We are going to be developing and celebrating the memories of 

other cultures, which we think will appeal to the other cultures, 

with bilingual commentary, and a high audio-visual component in 

the middle. This initial grant, and it is a purely philanthropic one, 

is one of the first that they have made in this way. It is going to 

be a very positive first step. 

We are considering particularly expanding into a major enterprise the small beginnings we have made with Brazil and Egypt. 

We will be looking into a variety of prospects to take our joint 
44 

projects out to some of the other ancient cultures of the world and 

dramatize to them that America has been a guardian and a preserver of much of the world’s cultural heritage. We will, in cooperation with the repositories in those countries, present it together, an 

American and Egyptian collaboration, and an American and Brazilian collaboration, and American collaboration with these other 

countries. 

We already have cooperative agreements with six countries, as I 

mentioned. We believe that America can play a leading role in 

helping develop better communication about the different cultures 

of the world that will increase our understanding of them and their 

appreciation of what we have done in this country to preserve their 

heritage as well as our own. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

Now, one last subject I want to cover has to do with the Open 

World Leadership Program. With respect to the Open World Program, I understand that Ambassador James Collins is undertaking 

a thorough review of the program at your request. Can you tell me 

when this effort will be complete and what particular aspects of the 

program may be overhauled? Now I understand that this is not a 

part of the Library, but you are the chair of that program and so 

I wondered if you could give us just a brief report on what you expect out of that thorough review. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, sir. We are doing, as we have already done 

and are refining within the Library, a comprehensive strategic plan 

for the Open World Program. Open World has been very successful. 

It is a unique undertaking in the legislative branch. It has brought 

more than 10,000 emerging young leaders: Russians, a growing 

program with the Ukraine, and startup experimental programs 

with Lithuania and Uzbekistan. There have been many suggestions 

from Members of Congress and others about this unique program, 

which is modeled in a lot of respects on the 1.5 percent of the Marshall Plan that was spent bringing young Germans over to the 

United States after the war. Open World is bringing over people 

from the former Soviet Union after the cold war. 

Now, we have tasked Ambassador Collins, who was Ambassador 

to Russia when the program was initiated in 1999, to conduct a 

strategic plan—and he is a member of the board of Open World, 

which of course has an independent existence within the legislative 

branch of Government, although certain administrative functions 

are performed still by the Library and I do chair the program. 

OPEN WORLD STRATEGIC PLAN

This strategic plan will be completed in late June or early July. 

We will present it at the board meeting and if agreed to by the 

board, we will provide for the implementation of the strategic plan. 

We will be looking at such questions as possible changes in the nature of the exchanges, which have been very successful—the areas 

to be covered. We now cover rule of law both in Russia and 

Ukraine, which is so central to the prospects of democracy—democratic development in those countries—and that has been an extraordinarily successful program. That is sure to survive. 
45 

But other programs, exactly what we should stress, whether this 

should be expanded to other countries and at what level are under 

review. We are discussing those issues of course in the strategic 

planning process—the staff has been working on it from the end of 

last year. The board meeting in December determined that we will 

reach conclusions and have the formal strategic plan from which 

future budgetary submissions will be derived. 

We will also be looking into, very closely into, possible economies, 

and we will be probably making changes. We will bring on fairly 

shortly a full-time executive director. We have had very good leadership up to this point. Geraldine Otremba, who does our congressional relations, was handling it at first. Aletta Waterhouse, who 

was also with it from the beginning, has been acting director since 

September. We will have a new executive director, a permanent appointment that we will be able to announce very shortly. 

That executive director will have a chance to work with and implement the strategic plan. There are a number of GAO suggestions, most of which we have already addressed, but they will be 

folded in in a full accounting into a full strategic plan from which 

we will derive our next budgetary submission. 

Our current budget request represents basically a continuation of 

what we are doing, more or less, with only a marginal adjustment 

this time for unavoidable cost increases, mostly in air fares. 

Senator ALLARD. I look forward to seeing what that final report 

is. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We would hope to report to, discuss our strategic plan with the Appropriations Committees before the board 

takes final action on it as well. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. Thank you. 

I do not have anything else. Any summary comments? 

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

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

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

GENPAC

Question. The Library requested a base adjustment for GENPAC of $2 million 

that is more or less evenly divided between serial and electronic purchases to ‘‘help 

keep pace with the greatly increased cost of serial and electronic materials (without 

which) risks eroding the foundation of the many services provided by the Library 

to the Congress and the nation.’’ The Library’s justification notes the rapidly growing number of electronic journals (approximately 35,000), and that the cost of journals has been rising at the rate of over 14 percent per year. How much of the Library’s costs are for providing the same information in different formats? What percentage of the journal collection is available in multiple media? What criteria are 

used to decide whether to offer journals in electronic and print formats? 

Answer. The Library generally does not purchase content in multiple formats. In 

a few instances, when materials exist in both print and electronic versions, the Library will acquire both. 

Duplication of information may occur for several reasons: 

—The manner in which publishers package journals into sets or aggregated databases causes duplicative content to be included in the Library’s acquisitions for 

the collections. An electronic database may have several hundred journal titles 

included, two-thirds of which are unique to the Library’s collections and therefore wanted. The remaining one-third may be duplicative of print journals, but 

because of the value of the unique two-thirds, the database is acquired (either 

purchased or licensed). 
46 

—Some publishers provide a free print copy of a journal when the electronic journal is purchased. 

—Electronic publications package their content uniquely, often offering significantly increased functionality, indexing, and ability to manipulate it. Because 

of the value that is added, the Library is providing a service to Congress and 

other users by purchasing an electronic copy, even when a print version is already in the Library’s collections. 

Because of the accelerating number of electronic journals being published and the 

Library’s vast collection of print journals, the percentage of the journal collection 

available in multiple formats cannot be determined. Because the long-term preservation of digital content still poses a challenge and because the Library has not completed its development of a digital repository to archive electronic journals for future 

generations, the Library has determined that it must continue to acquire print copies of journals that exist in both electronic and print form. The Library has taken 

steps, however, to mitigate its expenditures for electronic content. It is developing 

trusted partnerships with other organizations to ensure long term access to electronic journal content, which will allow the Library to cease purchasing duplicate 

copies of those titles. It also is testing the deposit of electronic journals for copyright 

and seeking change in the legislation for the mandatory deposit of various kinds of 

electronic content. The Library further initiated an effort several years ago to reduce its acquisition of multiple print copies when it was also acquiring an electronic 

version, thereby considerably reducing the duplication. 

When deciding on the format of journals, the Library follows these guidelines: 

—If a journal is issued in only one format (print or electronic), the Library acquires the title based on the importance of the content. 

—Electronic versions of print materials already in the collections are acquired to 

improve ease of access or to allow multiple users access to high-demand content. 

—Both print and electronic versions of journals are acquired if the second format 

is offered at no additional cost. 

—Print or microform journals are acquired when electronic versions exist, to ensure long term preservation. 

Print or microform journals are acquired when electronic versions exist, pending 

completion of the Library’s development of its digital repository. 

COPYRIGHT RECORDS PRESERVATION

Question. How will digitizing these records change your future maintenance and 

storage costs? 

Answer. The primary purpose of this project is to preserve the records—to provide 

an archival backup for the analog records, protecting against the possibility of loss 

of this irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind collection. During the first six years of the 

project, the records, including bound record books, microfilm reels, and catalog cards 

will be scanned and rudimentary index data will be captured. This will ensure the 

records can be archived and be accessed electronically at a basic level that will facilitate further indexing. However, the title, author, and copyright owners are not 

searchable terms in the rudimentary index. For the public who rely on our records, 

this index would not be a substitute for the original records until detailed indexing 

is accomplished in future years. 

The Copyright Office needs to retain all these analog records until that time, 

when the individual electronic records will be integrated with the post-1977 copyright records currently available for search and retrieval. The detailed indexing 

project is estimated to cost as much as $64 million. 

The Copyright Office will continue to house the card catalog on the fourth floor 

of the Madison Building to facilitate access for those who use these records. By the 

time the first phase of the project is completed, the Office plans to have its own storage facility at Fort Meade, maintained by the Architect of the Capitol. The record 

books, now in a leased storage facility offsite, would eventually be stored there. 

Total savings once Fort Meade storage is available would be $200,000 per year, increasing each year based on increased volume and rates charged for commercial 

storage. 

Therefore, digitizing these records for preservation during the next six years will 

not have an impact on maintenance and storage costs. If the detailed indexing is 

completed in the years following this first phase, a decision could be made to destroy 

the analog record. However, this discussion is years away. 

WORKFORCE TRANSFORMATION

Question. The request of $781,000 for the renewal and development of the Library’s workforce is described as an initial investment beginning in fiscal year 2007. 
47 

Are long range estimates available for the expected costs of replacing and retraining 

the workforce? Describe why these particular initiatives were selected and how they 

will directly support a larger workforce plan. Why fund these initiatives before there 

is a comprehensive strategic plan to guide the transformation of the workforce? How 

does the workforce transformation project, the strategic planning process, and the 

program assessment framework relate? What information do you hope to get out of 

these efforts that you currently do not have? 

Answer. The Library has and will continue to evaluate all aspects of its business 

functions, including work processes, equipment, IT and other infrastructure support, 

and staff performing the work. Periodic reviews are routine business practice but 

most certainly critical when the world demands new processes as witnessed by the 

digital transformation. The Library’s evaluations are taking place under the broad 

umbrella of strategic planning and through program specific assessments. No matter which mechanism is used, people will always play an important part of any 

transformation. They are not only a cornerstone in change itself, but needed to implement change. 

Given the aging workforce, with skills once valued but no longer needed in the 

future, the Library has begun its workforce transformation to keep up with new 

business functions and to lay the foundation for new functions on the horizon. 

Most of the fiscal year 2007 funding requested under workforce transformation is 

to support basic services that would be needed even if a major transformation were 

not occurring. For example, $225,000 supports 600 online courses, annual subscriptions to leadership development courses, mentoring programs, and career planning 

and counseling—services that are commonplace in most similarly-sized agencies, but 

are not currently available or adequately resourced in the Library. The online and 

annual subscriptions also provide a more cost-efficient option for training than the 

traditional classroom approach. 

A total of $98,000 supports one additional employee in the Library’s learning development center, to ensure the center is fully staffed and can manage the size of 

a training program needed for a large workforce. A total of $127,000 provides interpreter services to meet the demands of our diverse workforce, including those who 

are physically challenged. Finally, $231,000 is for a summer intern recruitment program that will not only help address the Library’s workload, but also provide a rich 

pool of candidates for future jobs at the Library. 

The remaining $100,000 goes beyond traditional training but asks the question 

of what type of employee and what skills will be needed in the future. Funding will 

help determine digital competencies, and it is this study that will lay the foundation 

for a more comprehensive strategic plan for transforming the Library’s workforce 

through retraining or new hiring—with new and different position descriptions. 

Until this analysis is completed, the Library cannot project future costs but hopes 

to be in position to do so by the fiscal year 2008 budget. 

Without the requested funding, the Library will fall further behind the rest of the 

Federal Government and the private sector, costing more in lost productivity and 

lost opportunities. 

DIGITAL COMPETENCIES

Question. Since fiscal year 2001, the number of items circulated has declined by 

over 24 percent and reference services by 17 percent. Internet transactions have increased by 214 percent. What has the Library done to redeploy staff? How do these 

trends relate to your request for skills training? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2007, the Library is requesting $100,000 to begin the development of a digital competencies initiative. This initiative will identify what new 

skills/staff are needed to support the digital transformation of the Library’s services, 

compare those skills to staff already on board, and highlight the gaps between the 

two. The results will be used to develop a comprehensive staffing and business plan 

that will outline action steps and related resources needed to retrain and/or reassign 

current staff, hire new staff, and enhance IT and other equipment to support staff. 

The Library already has focused on a few areas such as CRS and Library Services 

where the VERA/VSIP programs were used to help retire employees whose skills are 

no longer needed, allowing the Library to hire the expertise or equipment needed 

to meet the new services and new demands placed upon the Library as a result of 

the digital transformation. While offices will continue their program reviews, the 

digital competencies initiative will be a Library-wide review that will not only focus 

on each office but on how the Library works as a whole, for a more cohesive and 

integrated transition into the future. 
48 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REALIGNMENT

Question. CRS determined last year that some 59 production support, technology 

support, and audio-visual positions were no longer needed. You have determined 

that eliminating the 59 positions will save CRS approximately $4.4 million. How is 

this savings reflected in your fiscal year 2007 budget request? If analysts will become responsible for tasks previously done by production and technical support 

staff, (e.g., formatting, computer problems) won’t diversion to non-analytical tasks 

lower current efficiencies and effectiveness of CRS employees? 

Answer. This question is based upon two fundamentally incorrect assumptions. First, CRS never stated that the elimination of the 59 positions would ‘‘save’’ $4.4 

million. CRS is undergoing a workforce re-engineering effort that will enable the 

Service to hire different staff who can contribute directly and fully to meeting the 

Service’s mission. The funds that would have been used to pay the salaries and benefits of the 59 support staff will be redirected to pay for primarily research analysts. 

The Service’s fiscal year 2007 request reflects a budget that would support the ongoing need for approximately 705 FTEs. There are no savings associated with this 

workforce realignment; and retaining the 59 support staff indefinitely would adversely impact the Service’s ability to sustain adequate core research capacity. 

In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CRS requested a one-time budget base increase to 

close the gap on rising staff costs and give the Service a permanent budget base 

that could sustain a workforce of 729 FTEs. With only $500,000 approved for this 

purpose in fiscal year 2006 (none in fiscal year 2005), the Service had to implement 

a strategy that would adjust its permanent workforce down to 705 full-time equivalents (FTEs) while retaining an analytic capacity of 48 percent to 50 percent of the 

total staffing composition—between 335 and 350 staff. 

In fiscal year 2005, the House Appropriations Committee explicitly stated that it 

expected Legislative Branch agencies to take into consideration the overall budget 

constraints placed on the entire Federal budget and to submit more reasonable requests. At the same time, the Committee directed agencies to identify opportunities 

that would streamline operations, expand outsourcing in a range of operating activities, utilize existing technology to enhance efficiency, and implement management 

changes to increase efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Further, the Committee directed the Library to conduct a study to determine whether any duplicative 

functions existed between the Library and CRS. The same year, this Committee’s 

report language stated, ‘‘owing to budget constraints, the Committee is unable to 

recommend additional increases.’’ These policies were endorsed by the Conference 

language encouraging agencies to submit more reasonable budget requests. Similar 

policies and concepts were expressed in the fiscal year 2006 House report language. 

Agency heads were directed to embrace change and recognize staff and workforce 

as the most important agency asset. Agency heads were directed to look within for 

ways to achieve mission as opposed to seeking additional budgetary increases. In 

2006, the Senate re-emphasized the applicability of GPRA. Again, the Conference 

language endorsed these policy statements. CRS has heeded the Congress’ direction 

to find ways to streamline operations and improve efficiency. 

The CRS fiscal year 2007 request reflects the reality of the budget environment 

and respectfully recognizes the Congress’ expectation that the Service find a way to 

accomplish its mission within an organization of 700 to 705 FTEs. Right now, CRS 

needs the support of the Congress in order to continue its efforts for achieving a 

workforce transformation using the federal employment tools and authorities available, such as separation incentives, voluntary early retirements, and possibly a reduction in force (RIF). The Library is seeking two new administrative provisions 

that would give any remaining affected CRS staff (as of September 30, 2006) opportunities for priority placement in other federal agencies should a RIF become necessary. Your support and approval of that request would also be extremely helpful. 

In 2007, CRS plans to redirect the funds that would have been used to pay the salaries and benefits of the 59 staff to acquiring the capacities, work skills, and competencies needed in 2007 and beyond. Your support of the Service’s fiscal year 2007 

full budget request and your endorsement for maintaining the management flexibility needed to align or realign the organization to match the changing and complex 

congressional agenda within the financial resources available will go a long way in 

helping to ensure that the Service can indeed provide the continued level and quality of services that Congress is seeking. 

Second, the question incorrectly assumes that CRS analytical staff will now be responsible for performing production and/or technical support tasks—which is not the 

case. The question incorrectly assumes that CRS management is not focused on ensuring a most cost effective and efficient operation—which is also not the case. CRS 

has always been committed to providing analysts with the most technologically ro-
49 

bust workstations available. Advances in technology in the past ten years have provided automated tools on the analyst’s desktop with most of the needed formatting 

and production capabilities built in; and, these new technology tools have eliminated 

much of the need for production support personnel (the basis of the elimination of 

these functions). CRS is currently investing in the development of a new authoring 

and publishing system that will even further advance the ease of incorporating sophisticated graphics, tables, and pictures directly into CRS reports during the writing/authoring phase. The new system will allow increased analytic capacity—not decreased capacity. The system will make creation and dissemination of CRS reports 

even more efficient and more readily available to the Congress. 

The CRS analysts’ needs for publication production support will be provided centrally by the CRS Electronic Research Products Office (ERPO) which is staffed by 

a cadre of experienced editors, skilled in using advanced technology tools to produce 

products in multiple formats. CRS is building capacity in this office as a means to 

centralize, streamline, and provide uniform and high quality support across the 

Service. At the same time, the CRS Technology Office is revamping existing contracts to enhance its desktop user support operations, which will also include upto-date technology professionals who can resolve quickly the staff’s desktop computer problems. Managing modern technology in a centralized business model ensures that: (1) business-relevant technology skills are in place, maintained, and uniformly accessible to all agency staff; (2) all technology staff are directed from a singular agency-wide business strategy and perspective; and, (3) technology staff are 

provided consistent and uniform training opportunities based upon general technology refreshment, agency implementation of new hardware/software, or individual 

performance shortcomings. The central call center/help desk concept allows a computer specialist to gain remote access or ‘‘proxy’’ to a personal computer anywhere 

in the organization in order to evaluate and troubleshoot technical problems—giving 

every CRS employee immediate access to high quality technology support at their 

fingertips. 

FEE SERVICE ACTIVITIES

Question. What, if anything, has the Library done to identify services where it 

might be appropriate to either charge a fee or raise current fees? 

Answer. Where it is appropriate to charge fees, the Library does so and in some 

cases has a formal process for evaluating and raising those fees. 

For example, in 1997 Congress established a new procedure for setting fees for 

basic services for the Copyright Office (111 Stat. 1529 (1997), codified at 17 U.S.C. 

708(b)). The Copyright Office is directed to periodically study the costs of providing 

its basic services. After determining the costs of those services, it is directed to consider whether the full cost recovery fee is fair, equitable, and meets the objectives 

of the copyright system. If not, the fees may be adjusted to recover less than full 

cost. Following this study and consideration, the Copyright Office sends Congress 

a report discussing its study, conclusions, and a proposed fee schedule. This fee 

schedule will be adopted unless, within 120 days of receiving the proposal, Congress 

passes a law disapproving the proposed fees. The latest Copyright Office report, 

with its proposed fee schedule, was sent to Congress on February 28, 2006. 

Additionally, for other than basic services, the Copyright Office has the authority 

to set fees by regulation. On March 28, 2006, the Copyright Office proposed a new 

fee schedule for these additional services and invited public comment on this schedule. Also, a new fee service has been proposed. The comment period for these fees 

closes on April 27, 2006. The Office does not expect that Congress will reject its proposed fees for basic services. Additionally, it expects to conclude its fee setting rulemaking early in May. The plan is to institute all the new fees on July 1, 2006. 

Under the provisions of the Economy Act of 1932, 31 U.S.C. Sections 1535–1536, 

the Law Library has entered into Interagency Agreements with several Executive 

Branch agencies for services tailored to their specific needs requiring research and 

reference products outside the routine services provided by the Library. Fees are 

based on billable hours dedicated to the work performed. Other than contributions 

collected under the offsetting collections authority associated with GLIN and the 

interagency agreements noted above, there are no other Law Library activities that 

would be suitable for charging fees. 

Library Services has several revolving funds that charge a fee for services to inside and outside clients. The revolving funds operate under revolving fund law and 

other fund specific legislative guidelines. As part of the Business Enterprise Work, 

Library Services is reviewing all the revolving funds, including services provided 

and related fees, and may be proposing changes in the coming fiscal years. 
50 

As other work is identified for fee-based services, the Library will propose legislative language to support those fees. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Question. Dr. Billington, I understand that the retail shop at the Library of Congress is relocating due to the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center tunnel. What 

is the new location? How do you think the relocation of the shop will affect sales? 

Answer. In the summer of 2005, the Library relocated the shop to a larger location on the west side, beside the Visitor Center and close to the Capitol Visitor Center tunnel. Floor space has been increased from 1,100 square feet to 2,000 square 

feet. In moving the shop, we also took the opportunity to consolidate stock rooms 

and storage space has increased to 2,500 square feet. The following page includes 

the floor plans and pictures of the new shop location. 

The shop remains in a prominent space within the visitor area of the Jefferson 

Building. Given the continued visibility and the increased floor space, we are expecting the move, in coordination with other activities, to improve sales. As we develop 

our plans for the new visitor experience at the Jefferson building in the fall of 2007, 

we will be coordinating the work of the Library’s visitor services and exhibitions offices to enhance our retail presence. 
51 
52 

Question. When the CVC opens, there will undoubtedly be many more visitors 

coming to the Library. Are you considering expanding your retail product based on 

this increase? 

Answer. The sales shop will increasingly reflect the visitor experience of the Great 

Hall, the collections and art on display, the special and permanent exhibitions, and 

the interactive guides throughout the Jefferson Building. 

We are consolidating our product mix to focus on Library-related merchandise. 

Our sales figures show that Library-related products appeal to our visitors, both on 

site and online. Such Library-related products generate about 56 percent of total 

revenue, approximately $610,000 in fiscal year 2005. Nineteen of our twenty most 

popular items (by revenue) are library related. These top sellers generated $290,000 

in sales revenues, $100,000 in profits. We will continue to grow the percentage of 

inventory dedicated to proprietary Library products, increasing brand recognition, 

outreach, and revenue. 

Question. Dr. Billington, the Library’s fiscal year 2007 request includes a decrease 

of 44 FTE’s. Can you explain this decrease? 

Answer. The Library is reflecting a decrease of 44 FTEs in fiscal year 2007 as 

the result of authority expiring in fiscal year 2006, reduced workload, and/or adjustments needed to align staffing with available funding. Reductions include a total of 

13 FTEs for positions whose authority expires in fiscal year 2006 (6 FTEs for 

Culpeper, 1 FTE for Business Enterprise Project, and 6 FTEs for vacant police positions), 7 FTEs for reduced workload projected in the Copyright Office, and 24 FTEs 

in CRS to align staffing with funds available. 

Question. How will the Library’s transition into the digital environment affect its 

current workforce? What are your plans for retraining your current workforce? 

Answer. As part of our workforce transformation project, we will follow a systematic process to identify newly required skills and knowledge for our workforce as we 

transition into a digital environment. Until we complete job and skills gap analyses 

based on new skills and knowledge requirements, we will not know the full impact 

on our workforce. Where retraining is appropriate, we will create individual development plans and training programs to retrain members of the current workforce. 

Question. In fiscal year 2005, the Library’s website experienced a 14 percent increase in usage over fiscal year 2004. How are you preparing for this continuing 

trend in increased web usage? 

Answer. The Library of Congress website has continued to experience increases 

in use both as a result of a general increase in the number of users online and as 

the institution continues to add high-quality digitized material for our online audiences. The Library is projecting that the rate of increase will continue and build to 

higher levels over the next few years as the American public continues to discover 

and learn about the wealth of high-quality digitized materials and other content 

that we offer. 

The Library has begun the implementation of a web metrics program that includes new monitoring software and services that provide statistics and analytics to 

assist the Library in understanding the profiles of our online users, the web content 

that they access, the resulting impact on our supporting technical infrastructure, 

and our continued ability to provide high quality online services. This web metrics 

program and other tools that the Library uses to measure supporting infrastructure 

capacity will assist the Library in forecasting future usage and in planning capacity 

accordingly. 

To date, the Library has met growing user demand for online content and has 

supported the necessary expansion in technical infrastructure by adjusting our existing budgetary resources. We will continue to monitor these statistics and other 

metrics, assess performance, and weigh alternatives for maintaining high quality 

online service within existing resources if at all possible. 

Question. Dr. Billington, you have requested $102 million within the Architect of 

the Capitol’s fiscal year 2007 request. Can you prioritize the items in this request 

for the members of the subcommittee? 

Answer. Of the $102 million requested for the Library of Congress Buildings and 

Grounds budget within the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) fiscal year 2007 request, 

approximately $62 million supports 11 projects specifically requested by the Library. 

Construction of the Logistics Center at Fort Meade is the Library’s highest priority within the AOC budget. This facility is urgently needed to address many critical issues, including meeting fire and safety standards and providing environmentally sound storage for Library collections. The new facility at Fort Meade is the 

best overall investment for the government based on independent space and economic assessments. Choosing another site is not the solution nor will it reduce costs. 

The land at Fort Meade was purchased specifically to address storage requirements 

of the Legislative Branch. Leasing, buying or building storage facilities at other lo-
53 

cations would undermine this master plan. The 100 acres only cost the government 

one dollar. Choosing a different construction site would require millions of additional dollars for land. Upgrading current leased facilities or retrofitting other lease 

buildings would only benefit the landlords and not the government. Staying in current leased facilities forces the Library to continue to pay for space that is expensive 

and provides no return on investment (similar to renting vs. buying a home). Finally, we would lose the synergy of Fort Meade, which offers advantages and the 

cost benefit of one security system, one transportation destination, easy access between storage facilities, and other administrative efficiencies, while providing increased capacity on Capitol Hill, and more efficient use of space on and off Capitol 

Hill. 

If this project is delayed, the Library will continue to incur very expensive lease 

and repair costs associated with current storage materials. Savings to the government of at least $3 million annually will be lost to lease, operating and repair costs 

at existing facilities. The master plan at Fort Meade is already six years behind 

schedule. Further delays will raise the price tag of this project again due to inflation 

and other factors and further delay, and also increase, the price tag of other buildings planned for in the master plan. 

The remaining 10 Library projects are needed to maintain the Library’s buildings 

and grounds, to address immediate environmental, fire and life safety issues, and 

to support space modifications in response to the Library’s ever changing program 

needs. 

The AOC has also included their own fire and life safety projects. Past deferments 

and delays have created a long list of urgently needed projects. The cost of maintenance and upgrades will continue to rise rapidly if the Library cannot stop, or at 

least slow down, the rate of deterioration of its buildings and return to its approved 

construction plan and schedule. 

The following table lists the Library’s projects in priority order: 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET—LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS 

Library Priorities Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2007 

Requested 

Fort Meade Book Module 3 & 4 ........................................................................................................................... ........................

Copyright Deposit Re-Design ............................................................................................................................... ........................

Fort Meade Logistics Warehouse ......................................................................................................................... $54,200,000 

Culpeper O&M (Facility Support) ......................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

Fort Meade O&M (Facility Support) ..................................................................................................................... 640,000 

Air Handling Unit Replacement JMMB ................................................................................................................. 2,890,000 

Preservation Environmental Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 80,000 

Contract Asbestos Validation TJB ........................................................................................................................ 100,000 

LOC Space Modifications (Rooms and Partitions) .............................................................................................. 650,000 

Minor Construction ............................................................................................................................................... 990,000 

Painting ................................................................................................................................................................ 100,000 

Kitchen Equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 40,000 

Design—Court Yard Renovation, TJB .................................................................................................................. 75,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 62,265,000 

Operational Support ............................................................................................................................................. 39,972,000 

Client Total ............................................................................................................................................. 102,237,000 

Question. Please provide an update on the progress of the National Audio-Visual 

Conservation Center in Culpeper, VA. When will this facility be complete? 

Answer. The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) is in charge of the NAVCC construction. PHI is working closely with the Architect of the Capitol and has made 

and is financing enhancements and improvements in the original plan. PHI’s originally scheduled completion dates for the NAVCC were spring 2005 for the Phase 

1 Collections Building and Central Plant and spring 2006 for the Phase 2 Conservation Building and Nitrate Vaults. Since then, construction delays have forced PHI 

to revise slightly its master schedule. Phase 1 was turned over to the Library in 

December 2005, and the Library is now moving its collections into this part of the 

complex. For Phase 2, PHI’s new master schedule indicates a completion and turnover date for the entire project of March 1, 2007. 

Staff will be relocated in stages that are synchronized with the PHI construction 

schedule. Six Library staff began working in the Phase 1 Collections Building in 
54 

January 2006. The majority of NAVCC staff will work in the Phase 2 Conservation 

Building and will be relocated in alignment with the new construction schedule as 

follows: —Summer 2006.—Relocation of two or three advance staff from the Motion Picture Conservation Center (MPCC) in Dayton, Ohio to help set up the NAVCC 

Film Laboratory. —December 1, 2006.—Relocation of two advance technical staff from MBRS in 

Washington to install cabling and initial AV system components. —March-May 2007.—Relocation of Capitol Hill staff and the remainder of the 

Dayton staff to Culpeper. Approximately 12 MBRS staff will remain in the 

Madison Building to provide public services in the NAVCC reading room. 

Question. Dr. Billington, the Library has requested funding in fiscal year 2007— $150,000—for the Lincoln traveling exhibition. Please describe how the Library is 

working with the federally designated Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission 

on development and implementation of the exhibition. 

Answer. The Library of Congress has had periodic meetings with the director and 

various members of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission for more than 

a year. At these meetings, we discuss the progress of the exhibition, funding efforts, 

the other venues to which the exhibition will travel, and the coordination of programming developed by the Library as well as programming developed by the Commission and its partners. 

The Commission has been particularly helpful in identifying and making initial 

contacts with many of the exhibition’s potential venues. Further, many of the Library of Congress Lincoln exhibition advisors have been drawn from the Commission’s Advisory Committee. We will continue to share information and progress reports with the Commission in planning the Library exhibition and its ancillary programs. 

Question. Mr. Mulhollan, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently 

eliminated 59 permanent job positions in 3 categories. This is the first reductionin-force (RIF) in CRS’s history. Can you tell us what steps you are taking to ensure 

a fair transition for these employees? 

Answer. CRS has taken a number of steps to assist the staff who will be affected 

by CRS’ decision to change the way work is performed. These include: 

—Staff received a full twelve months to seek and find alternative employment. 

The decision was announced on September 22, 2005 and the positions will not 

be eliminated until September 30, 2006. 

—CRS offered a voluntary early retirement option and requested of the Congress 

and received authority to offer a separation incentive payment of up to the legal 

maximum amount allowed of $25,000 to staff separating through retirement 

with a full annuity, early retirement, or resignation. Twenty-three of the affected staff took advantage of one or both of these programs and retired on or 

before January 3, 2006. 

—Since the end of September, CRS alone and in collaboration with the Library’s 

Office of Human Resources Services, has been providing a range of retirement 

and career counseling services, including: 

—Retirement counseling: special briefings on the details of voluntary early retirement; the application and approval process for separation incentives; a 

two-day retirement seminar for staff and spouses; and individual retirement 

counseling. 

—Career services: workshops and individual career counseling sessions; a workshop with representatives from D.C., Maryland, and Virginia career services 

centers; a comprehensive three-day career-transition workshop; notification of 

local recruiting events, and access to a web page with career-related information and links to numerous websites. 

—Employment opportunities: training on how to apply for positions using the 

Library’s automated hiring system; notification of all vacancy announcements 

within CRS; and notification of potential vacancies of interest in the Library. 

—Reduction-in-force (RIF) briefing: a special briefing with a RIF expert on RIF 

general procedures. 

—Further, the Library is seeking approval of new and permanent authority that 

will grant any Library of Congress employee who is the subject of a formal RIF 

with job placement rights with agencies in the Executive Branch. Heretofore, 

Library of Congress staff displaced through agency downsizing or reengineering 

had no federal re-employment rights regardless of their grade, job series, or federal tenure. This authority would grant Library of Congress employees who receive a RIF notice priority status for selection into competitive-service positions 

in the executive branch. Such authority is currently granted to executive branch 

employees who are RIFed from executive branch positions. This authority would 
55 

place Library of Congress employees behind any affected employees in an agency undergoing a RIF in selection priority but ahead of applicants who have no 

federal service. Adopting this provision would give the Library’s employees a 

broader potential employment base and help employees who wish to continue 

their public-service careers beyond the Library of Congress. 

Question. Where in your fiscal year 2007 budget have you accounted for the possibility of paying severance pay to these employees? 

Answer. First, we need to add that one additional individual within the CRS affected staff has been offered a position outside of the Library—bringing the number 

of remaining employees down to 30. The Library is committed to funding any fiscal 

liability associated with the separation of the remaining 30 affected CRS staff; however, the question assumes that all severance pay will be borne by CRS which is 

unlikely. Further, the specific treatment of severance pay in the Library’s budget 

is premature. 

Projecting the amount of severance pay which will actually be paid in fiscal year 

2007 is a complicated process. It involves taking into account several variable outcomes: forecasting the number of staff that who accept Voluntary Early Retirement 

(VERA) and/or the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP); the number of 

staff who are successful in competing for vacant positions in CRS, the Library, other 

federal agencies, or in the private sector; and ultimate placement of affected staff 

into vacant positions in the Library or elsewhere in the Federal government under 

a reduction-in-force action. 

Of the 30 who remain on the CRS payroll at this time, one is currently eligible 

for full retirement and eight others are or will be eligible for early retirement on 

September 30. In accordance with the Federal Code of Regulations, an employee 

separated by a reduction-in force (RIF) action is ineligible for a severance entitlement if they are eligible to receive an immediate annuity from a federal retirement 

system. For these nine staff, CRS will be liable only for terminal leave payments, 

estimated at about $49,000. 

The Library’s general policy is ‘‘to retain and to assign to other positions, insofar 

as may be possible... staff members whose positions are abolished.’’ This may 

occur by assigning staff to vacant positions in other organizations within the Library, or by an employee affected by a RIF exercising their ‘‘bumping’’ rights to 

claim a position held by someone with less retention preference. It is conceivable 

that ‘‘bumping’’ could eventually force an involuntary separation of an employee in 

another Library Service Unit, in which case, the severance payments would not be 

reflected in the CRS budget. Further, given that the individual who is ultimately 

separated has the least seniority, the Library’s fiscal liability would be reduced because the severance entitlement computation is based upon years of service and age. 

Should an affected employee decline a reasonable offer to be reassigned into another 

Library position, that employee forfeits his/her claim to receive severance pay. The 

severance entitlement terminates if/when an individual becomes employed under a 

qualifying appointment with the federal government or the government of the District of Columbia. 

As stated by both the Librarian and the CRS Director, it is the hope of the institution that all of the affected staff will find alternative employment or be placed into 

vacant positions within the Library. If a formal RIF becomes necessary and the 

processes governing it are implemented, the Library of Congress has a good track 

record for placing employees and is hopeful that this will again be the case. 

As stated elsewhere in these responses, the Library is seeking two new administrative provisions that would grant competitive status to Library staff who have 

completed their probationary period and places displaced Library staff on equal footing with Executive branch employees by making these employees eligible for vacant 

Executive Branch positions. These new provisions would expand options for Library 

staff facing a RIF and offers all Library employees additional opportunities for jobs 

and career growth in public service. As staff are successfully placed within the Library or with other federal agencies, the federal financial liability for severance pay 

decreases accordingly and could be eliminated altogether. 

Question. Have you provided any Members of Congress, Congressional committees, or CRS staff copies of the studies or any other written analysis which led you 

to decide that 59 permanent positions should be eliminated by September 30, 2006? 

If not, members of this subcommittee would like to see copies of these studies. 

Answer. A CRS ‘‘Director’s Report’’ issued on November 3, 2005 provides a detailed analysis of the decision to eliminate the production support, technical support 

assistant, and audio-visual staff. That report was provided to selected members of 

the metropolitan area delegation, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus. This report and extensive additional information also were provided to the House Adminis-
56 

tration Committee and key staff on the Library’s oversight committees. The report 

was also made available to all CRS staff members on the CRS staff web page. The 

Director’s Report of November 3, 2005 follows. 

DIRECTOR’S REPORT—FISCAL YEAR 2006 STAFFING CHANGES, NOVEMBER 3, 2005 

SUMMARY

The Director of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is vested by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 with responsibility to assure the appropriate mix 

of employees and consultants to develop and maintain the information and research 

capability that he deems necessary to perform the statutory mission of the Service— 

to provide to the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and 

reliable legislative research, analysis, and information services that are timely, objective, non-partisan, and confidential. The Director is also authorized to ‘‘establish 

and change, from time to time, as he considers advisable, within the Congressional 

Research Service, such research and reference divisions or other organizational 

units, or both, as he considers necessary . . .’’ From the statute, it is clear that the 

Director is obligated to undertake such reorganizations and staffing adjustments as 

he considers necessary to provide efficiently and effectively the products and services upon which Members and committees rely and have come to expect. The staffing adjustments announced recently fall squarely within this obligation. The Congress is facing many global and domestic financial challenges and has explicitly 

stated that Legislative Branch agency heads are expected to look within to find 

ways to streamline operations and pare all unnecessary duplication and costs that 

are not critical to achieving core business goals and objectives. 

The following key points are discussed in the report. 

The Decision 

The Congressional Research Service will eliminate the production support, technical support assistant, and audio visual positions on September 30, 2006. This action affects 59 staff in a total workforce of nearly 700. The decision is based on a 

series of management reviews and evaluations of needed functions and activities 

which have been overtaken by technological advances. CRS will redirect the resources, currently committed to supporting these staff, to obtain new support capacities critical to service to the Congress. 

Of the 59 staff, 38 are production coordinators or assistants (of which two are receptionists), 18 are technical support assistants, and three are in audio-visual support. The average compensation, including salary and benefits, for these staff is 

$75,101 per annum; the average salary without benefits is $60,636. Over one-half 

of these staff, 33, are either eligible for full voluntary retirement or voluntary early 

retirement and the maximum $25,000 separation incentive. Sixteen are not eligible 

to retire but are eligible for the maximum $25,000 separation incentive. The average 

separation incentive for these 16 staff is $16,906. 

Currently 32.3 percent of CRS’ total permanent workforce of 694 staff is minority. 

If all of the affected staff were to separate from CRS and no other attrition or hires 

were to take place (total staff reduced to 635), the total minority population would 

be 28.8 percent. The proportion of Asian Americans would increase from 4.5 percent 

to 4.7 percent; Native Americans would increase from .7 percent to .8 percent; Hispanics would remain the same; and the proportion of African Americans would decrease from 24.6 percent to 20.9 percent. It must be noted that these projections of 

course do not reflect new hires or the consequences of other attrition. 

CRS is offering the 59 affected staff a variety of resources to assist in their planning, including an early retirement option, separation incentive of up to $25,000, retirement counseling, career and job counseling, and retention in their current positions through September, 2006. 

CRS, as a result of management reviews and evaluations, has and continues to 

create new positions to meet critical work needs of the Service. Affected staff may 

apply for these positions through an open and competitive process. 

Background 

In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations issued clear directives to all Legislative Branch agencies to maintain rigorous 

and disciplined business practices in agency operations, to contain costs, to establish 

strong agency-performance goals, and to report to the Congress on all of these activities. CRS based the fiscal year 2006 staffing decisions upon analytic and objective evaluations of how best to align resources to current, critical work needs. 

The final fiscal year 2005 and 2006 appropriations for CRS require the agency to 

downsize permanently by the equivalent of about 30 full time equivalents (FTEs), 
57 

1 2 U.S.C. 166 (d, f). 

thereby reducing total FTEs from 729 to 700. Given the confluence of several factors, including a higher average grade level (higher level of expertise) and the continuing trend of increased costs for staff benefits (Federal Employee Retirement System benefits average 28 percent per employee versus an average of 13 percent per 

employee under Civil Service Retirement System), CRS requested in fiscal years 

2005 and 2006 additional funds, $2.7 million and $3.6 million respectively, to compensate for funding shortfalls in its budget base. Congress did not fund the request 

in fiscal year 2005 and provided $500,000 toward this shortfall in 2006. CRS must 

be vigilant to maintain the necessary analytic strength to support the Congress, and 

it must maintain an infrastructure that meets and keeps pace with the Congress’ 

evolving needs. The fiscal year 2006 staffing decisions are part of the Service’s overall strategy to accommodate a downsized CRS within the framework of a fiscally 

constrained budget. 

CRS has taken action and implemented adjustments over the last five years to 

ensure that its resources are properly aligned with congressional needs. These adjustments resulted in the elimination and restructuring of organizational units; the 

elimination, downgrading, and creation of positions; and the use of contractors to 

undertake specific work needs. CRS based each adjustment upon formal assessments of the impact of new technologies on the work; the existing content, structure 

and processes of the work performed; the skills and abilities needed to undertake 

the work; and in some cases, consideration to outsource the work based upon a cost 

and feasibility analysis. Examples of recent assessments follow: 

—1. The role of information professionals/librarians within CRS. The result of 

this study led to the elimination of a CRS office and a division (Office of Information Resources Management and Information Research Division) and the creation of one smaller, integrated division, the Knowledge Services Group. The 

work of librarians, as well as all paralegal, technical information, and most library technician staff, throughout the Service was redefined and adjusted. Positions were created to undertake new functions, revisions were made to other positions to align the work directly to the new organization, some positions were 

eliminated, and some activities were contracted out. During the assessment, no 

new permanent hires were made into positions under review. Today, the new, 

more efficient, organization consists of 54 fewer staff performing the work—a 

staff reduction from 190 to 136. 

—2. Examination of support positions within three infrastructure offices. Three 

separate studies evaluated the functions supporting CRS formal programs and 

seminars in the Legislative Relations Office and of administrative functions 

within the Offices of Finance and Administration and Workforce Development. 

These studies resulted in CRS creating and competitively filling new positions 

at lower grade levels. For example, program aide positions were redesignated 

at a GS–11 level rather than GS–13. Administrative support grade levels within 

the Offices were reduced, on average, from GS–11 to GS–7. 

—3. Integration of CRS’ economists and scientists with other policy research disciplines. This study led to the elimination of two research divisions (Economics 

and Science Policy), the integration of the economists and scientists into the 

other policy divisions, the elimination of seven senior level research coordination positions, and the return of five senior level specialists to full time research. 

—4. Outsourcing of selected support functions. Other functional assessments resulted in expanded outsourcing of CRS support activities, including mail and 

courier service, technical troubleshooting (help desk and user support), receptionist duties, and copy center operations. 

INTRODUCTION

The Director of the Congressional Research Service is vested by the Legislative 

Reorganization Act of 1970 with responsibility to assure the appropriate mix of employees and consultants to develop and maintain the information and research capability that he deems necessary to perform the statutory mission of the Service—to 

provide to the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable legislative research, analysis, and information services that are timely, objective, non-partisan, and confidential. The Director is also authorized to ‘‘establish and 

change, from time to time, as he considers advisable, within the Congressional Research Service, such research and reference divisions or other organizational units, 

or both, as he considers necessary . . .’’ 1 From the statute, it is clear that the Di-
58 

2The Federal Employees Retirement System Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–335) requires all federal employees initially hired into permanent positions after 1983 to be covered by the Federal 

Employees Retirement System (FERS). Federal employees hired before 1984 are covered by the 

Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) unless they elected to switch to FERS during ‘‘open 

seasons’’ held in 1987 and 1998. For CSRS participants, the total employer-paid benefits per 

employee averages about 13 percent of the base pay. For staff participating in FERS, the employer-paid benefits cost averages about 28 percent of the base pay—due in large part to the 

Thrift Savings Plan matching component of FERS—making FERS significantly more expensive 

to the employing agency. As the older CSRS staff retire and the proportion of the workforce covered by FERS increases, the agency overhead costs related to staff benefits increases. 3Testimony of Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress, 

House, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2005, hearing, 

108th Cong., 2d sess., (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 274; and testimony of Daniel P. Mulhollan, 

Director, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, 

Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2006, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 

2005), p. 593. 

rector is obligated to undertake such reorganizations and staffing adjustments as he 

considers necessary to provide efficiently and effectively the products and services 

upon which Members and committees rely and have come to expect. The staffing 

adjustments announced recently fall squarely within this obligation. The Congress 

is facing many global and domestic financial challenges and has explicitly stated 

that Legislative Branch agency heads are expected to look within to find ways to 

streamline operations and pare all unnecessary duplication and costs that are not 

critical to achieving core business goals and objectives. 

CURRENT CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO STAFFING DECISION

Congressional Directives and the CRS Budget 

In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations issued clear directives to all Legislative Branch agencies to maintain rigorous 

and disciplined business practices in agency operations, cost containment, and 

achievement of agency-performance objectives. The use of sound business practices 

has been, and will continue to be, the way CRS is managed. The fiscal year 2006 

enacted budget places financial constraints on CRS operations and reinforces Congress’ expectation that CRS contain costs while sustaining a highly productive, high 

performing agency. Appendix A provides excerpts from the committee reports. 

Eighty-eight percent of the CRS budget, now just over $100 million, is earmarked 

for the ‘‘salary and benefits’’ costs of its workforce. Over the past ten years, the 

Service’s annual adjustments provided through the budget process have not kept 

pace with the rapidly increasing costs of sustaining CRS’ workforce, due to several 

factors: 

—a gradual and necessary shift to more highly skilled expertise in the CRS workforce composition to support the Congress in increasingly complex policy areas 

(e.g., combating terrorism, assimilating information technologies in industry, 

commerce and governments, and the implications of an aging population). In 

the period from fiscal year 1995 to the present, the average grade level of a CRS 

hire has increased from GS–7, Step 9 to GS–13, Step 9; 

—a shift in the proportion of the workforce participating in the Federal Employee 

Retirement System, for which the average employer-paid benefits rate of 28 percent is twice that of a Civil Service Retirement System employee making the 

same salary (with an average employer-paid benefits rate of 13 percent); 2

—the adverse impact of annual rescissions in which losses are not recovered in 

subsequent years; and 

—the fact that the President has implemented actual pay raises that are higher 

than those provided in the Legislative Branch bills in nine of the last ten years. 

While each of these factors would produce a marginal impact in the course of a 

single year, the cumulative and combined impact of all of them has generated a 

funding gap of nearly $4 million over the course of ten years. 

In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CRS requested a one-time budget base adjustment 

($2.7 to $3.6 million respectively) ‘‘catch-up,’’ that would have provided the funding 

needed to recover lost cost increases (purchasing power) and to rebuild the CRS 

workforce to the 729 full time equivalent (FTE) ceiling authorized by the Congress. 

In both years CRS informed the Congress that without the additional funding, the 

Service’s workforce would necessarily be drawn down to a level of about 700 FTEs, 

causing a serious impact on its ability to sustain the research capacity required to 

fulfill its mission and meet the needs of the Congress.3 The Congress did not support the request in fiscal year 2005, and in fiscal year 2006 authorized $500,000 to-
59 

wards this shortfall. CRS can no longer sustain a capacity of 729 full-time equivalent employees. 

CRS Management Initiatives 

Well before the issuance of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 report language from the 

House and Senate (see Appendix A), and with the goal of maintaining a cost-effective organization, CRS had been undertaking systematic assessments to identify 

current and future resource needs and to identify functions that should be eliminated or re-engineered due to technological advancements, internal work processes 

and congressional needs. Listed below are some of the more significant management 

initiatives CRS has instituted and the results of these initiatives. CRS has: 

—Developed and implemented an annual staffing assessment to determine four 

key factors: (1) anticipated and known attrition, (2) anticipated legislative 

issues, (3) likely gaps in the Service’s capacity to meet the needs of Congress, 

and (4) current and future staffing needs. This assessment forms the basis for 

the Service’s annual hiring plan and is a critical activity since staff salaries and 

benefits comprise 88 percent of the CRS budget. 

—Implemented an annual ‘‘zero scrub’’ of the 12 percent of the CRS budget devoted to nonpersonnel costs to validate each planned expenditure and to identify 

expenditures that should either be considered for reduction or elimination, or 

adjusted upwards to meet agency needs; 

—Created a new performance assessment system for senior-level managers; and 

—Instituted annual program and activity reviews to assess the efficiencies and effectiveness of current operations, as well as identify potential need to re-engineer or realign resources. 

Resulting actions—organizational and staff realignments: 

—The role of information professionals/librarians within CRS. The result of a two 

year study led to the elimination of a CRS office and a division (Office of Information Resources Management and Information Research Division) and the creation of one smaller, integrated division, the Knowledge Services Group. The 

work of librarians, as well as all paralegal, technical information, and most library technician staff, throughout the Service was redefined and adjusted. Positions were created to undertake new functions, revisions were made to other positions to align the work directly to the new organization; some positions were 

eliminated; and some activities were contracted out. During the assessment no 

new permanent hires were made into positions under review. Today, the new, 

more efficient, organization contains 54 fewer staff to perform the work, a reduction from 190 to 136 staff members. 

—Examination of support positions within three infrastructure offices. Three separate studies evaluated the functions supporting formal CRS programs and seminars in the Legislative Relations Office and of administrative functions within 

the Offices of Finance and Administration and Workforce Development. The result of these studies led CRS to create and competitively fill new positions at 

lower grade levels. For example, program aide positions were redesignated at 

a GS–11 level rather than GS–13. Administrative support grade levels within 

the Offices were reduced on average from GS–11 to GS–7. 

—Integration of CRS’ economists and scientists with other policy research disciplines. This study led to the elimination of two research divisions (Economics 

and Science Policy), the integration of the economists and scientists into the 

other policy divisions, the elimination of seven senior level research coordination positions, and the return of five senior level specialists to full time research. 

Resulting actions—activities and services eliminated: 

—Eliminated two product lines—Info Packs and Electronic Briefing Books; 

—Closed two research centers—located in the Longworth and Ford House office 

buildings; 

—Eliminated indexing of committee prints; 

—Shifted CRS product distribution from a primarily paper-based inventory to primarily web-based, on-demand printing; 

—Eliminated the public policy literature file and service; 

—Closed one copy center; and 

—Eliminated and consolidated division libraries. 

Resulting actions—activities and services outsourced: 

—Mail and messenger services; 

—Copy center operations; 

—Receptionist functions; 

—Selected technology support; and 

—Selected library technical support. 
60 

4 In 2000, a preliminary review of the functions carried out by the CRS production staff suggested that technological advances in word processing were beginning to have implications for 

the ability to sustain staff resources devoted to supporting word processing activities. While determining the long-term consequences of these advances on CRS staffing levels, the Service did 

not fill any production coordinator or assistant positions thus, in effect, implementing a freeze 

on these positions until further study could be undertaken. 

The most recently completed 2005 program and activity reviews include an assessment of the functions currently performed by CRS production support staff, 

technical support assistants, and audio-visual staff. These assessments formed the 

basis for the actions underway in these support activities. Studies to assess other 

activities and functions are in progress. 

PRODUCTION SUPPORT, TECHNICAL SUPPORT ASSISTANT, AND AUDIO-VISUAL FUNCTIONS

Studies and Findings 

Data for these 2005 studies came from a variety of sources, including multiple discussions with potentially affected staff; a thorough review of all relevant position 

functions; initial and subsequent meetings with each assistant director and deputy 

assistant director, some associate directors, and a sample of analysts, attorneys, editors, and section heads. Information was collected using structured questions and 

analyses of documents provided by CRS staff.4

Aware of the changing functions needed to support its analytic work, CRS last 

filled a primary production support position in 1997; a technical support assistant 

position in 1999; and an audio-visual position in 1991. The studies undertaken in 

2005 confirmed that the functions identified and performed by staff in these positions, while appropriate and warranted ten years ago when first created, have been 

overtaken by advances in technology and desktop computing. 

The in-depth reviews of the production-support and technical-support assistant 

functions confirmed that advances in technology have changed both the expectations 

staff have with regard to the capacity and power of their desktop computing capabilities and ease of using these technologies in their day-to-day work. Ten years ago, 

when CRS created the technical support assistant positions, the software and operating systems used by the Service required a hands-on presence by supporting staff, 

leading to the necessity of investing in a significant number of technical support positions. For example, in the past operating systems and software applications were 

manually installed machine by machine. Today’s computing environment is supported centrally via ‘‘push’’ technology that enables sophisticated software packages 

and upgrades to be loaded on more than 700 computers from a single, central location within a few minutes. Such technology also allows for a computer specialist to 

gain remote access to or ‘‘proxy into’’ a computer in order to evaluate and troubleshoot technical problems directly with the user. 

In addition, more than one-third of CRS’ current analytic staff has been hired in 

the last five to six years. They are more technologically adroit, routinely producing 

final products at their desktops. And as a result, the majority of CRS analysts no 

longer rely on the production staff to help with product creation. Further, CRS is 

moving away from providing the Congress with paper copies of reports to a primarily web-based delivery system, with products prepared in both PDF and HTML. 

Software and other technology advances have simplified product delivery and incorporated most of the formatting directly in the software on the author’s desk. The 

CRS Electronic Research Products Office is responsible for preparing CRS written 

products for final congressional publication and dissemination, hence this function 

is not undertaken by the individual analyst or production support coordinator or assistant. 

Direct congressional demand for audio-visual products has been declining for more 

than ten years. And the need by CRS analysts for audio-visual support is uneven 

calling into question the need to retain a separate, in-house staff for this purpose. 

Since the functions needed to support effectively and efficiently the administrative, product-preparation, and technology assistance activities are significantly different from what is currently being performed, the Director decided to eliminate the 

current positions and redirect these resources to fulfilling newly identified support 

needs. In order to accommodate remaining audio-visual needs the Service is exploring outsourcing options. Appendix B provides additional information on the studies. 
61 

5 Receptionist functions have been outsourced, and as a result the two remaining receptionists 

in the Service are included as part of these staffing changes. 6 CRS has the authority to grant the separation incentive payment to a maximum of 50 staff. 

Up to 10 of these payments may be granted to staff outside of these affected positions—the staff 

of the Knowledge Services Group. There is no limit, however, on the number of affected staff 

who can take advantage of the voluntary early retirement option. 

AFFECTED STAFF

Positions Affected 

Production support and receptionist duties 5: The 38 individuals affected by this 

decision are in positions at grade levels GS–4 to GS–11. With the exception of two 

receptionists, the principal functions of the current production staff include: 

—supporting research analysts throughout the entire product preparation process 

to include the creation, formatting, styling, editing and appearance of written 

documents, and in the development of graphics and tables when needed; 

—creating macros, templates and other guides to use in supporting research analysts as they prepare their written products; 

—meeting the needs of division authors with respect to design, format and presentation of written products; 

—working with division management to ensure uniformity of style and format for 

division research products consistent with Service-wide standards; and 

—delivering final products to the CRS Review Office and the Electronic Research 

Products Office. 

Technical Support: The 18 individuals affected by this decision are in positions 

at the GS–12 grade level. The principal functions of the current positions include: 

—analyzing operations with requirements that can be met through limited 

customization of existing hardware components and/or software packages; 

—installing standard and specialized software on individual computers within a 

division or office; 

—keeping systems fully operational, integrated with other CRS systems, and current with new developments in technology; and 

—serving as trouble shooter for various computer problems encountered by division/office staff. 

Audio-visual support: The three individuals affected by this decision in the audiovisual specialist/officer position are at the GS–12 and GS–13 grade levels. Highlights of their current functions include taping and editing scheduled programs and 

creating videos of a small number of CRS experts who have prepared educational 

presentations such as Supreme Court nominations and congressional procedures. 

Salaries and Compensation 

The total projected fiscal year 2006 cost for the 59 staff who are affected by this decision is $4,430,962. Salaries and benefits for individual staff range from $35,141 

to a high of $115,678—the average being $75,101. Further analysis of the data indicates that the salaries (excluding benefits) for the affected staff range from $26,989 

to $99,223, with an average salary of $60,636. The median salary of these staff is 

$52,082; eight staff earn less than $50,000 per year. Appendix C includes a more 

detailed display of the salaries and benefits for the affected staff. 

Retirement Eligibility 

CRS is offering a voluntary early retirement option and separation incentive payment 6 to the affected staff. CRS sought these options based on the following information about the 59 affected staff: 

—33 of the affected staff are either eligible for full voluntary retirement or voluntary early retirement and are eligible to receive the maximum $25,000 separation incentive (16 for full retirement and 17 for early retirement); 

—16 are not eligible to retire but are eligible for the maximum $25,000 separation 

incentive; 

—Nine who are not eligible to retire, are eligible for separation incentive payments ranging between $3,434 to $21,943, at an average of $16,906; and 

—One staff member, a receptionist, is not eligible for a separation incentive because he has not fulfilled the requirement of three years’ employment with the 

government. 

Appendix C also includes data on the retirement eligibility of affected staff. 

Diversity 

A consequence of the 2006 staffing decisions is its potential impact on the Service’s workforce diversity profile. Table 1 below demonstrates that if all of the affected staff were to separate from the CRS workforce (data as of September 15, 
62 

2005), with no other attrition or hires, the minority population of the CRS workforce 

would represent 28.8 percent rather than 32.3 percent of total staff. This computation, while accurate, may overstate the implication of the reduction on minority 

staff. There is no way to predict the impact other attrition might have on the Service’s workforce composition or the impact of planned 2006 hires. Further, given that 

16 of these staff are currently eligible for full voluntary retirement, it is possible 

that many of these staff would have retired during this period, regardless of the reengineering efforts underway. 

If no other element of our current profile changed, the elimination of these positions would result in an increase in the proportion of Asian Americans in the total 

workforce from 4.5 percent to 4.7 percent; the proportion of Native Americans would 

increase from .7 percent to .8 percent; Hispanics would remain the same, at 2.4 percent; while the proportion of African Americans would decrease from 24.6 percent 

to 20.9 percent. 

TABLE 1.—DIVERSITY COMPOSITION OF THE CRS STAFF 

Total CRS Perm/Ind Workforce 

Composition as of 9/15/05 

Projected CRS Perm/Ind Workforce Composition as of 10/1/ 06 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Female .......................................................................................... 357 51.4 317 49.9 

Male .............................................................................................. 337 48.6 318 50.1 

Total ................................................................................ 694 100.0 635 100.0 

Minority composition ..................................................................... 224 32.3 183 28.8 

Nat Am/Alaskan ................................................................... 5 0.7 5 0.8 

Asian American .................................................................... 31 4.5 30 4.7 

African American ................................................................. 171 24.6 133 20.9 

Hispanic ............................................................................... 17 2.4 15 2.4 

Non-Minority .................................................................................. 470 67.7 452 71.2 

Total ................................................................................ 694 100.0 635 100.0 

Appendix D provides the diversity composition of the affected staff. 

Services to Affected Staff 

CRS is offering a variety of resources to staff to assist them in their decision making and transition. CRS requested of the Congress and received authority to offer 

a separation incentive payment of up to $25,000 to staff separating through retirement with a full annuity, early retirement, or resignation. CRS is granting staff one 

full year to find alternative employment and offering numerous specialized and individual services to help them achieve that objective, including job and retirement 

counseling. Appendix E provides a detailed list of the services and resources being 

offered to the 59 affected staff. 

It is CRS’ hope that these measures will eliminate the need to undertake a reduction-in-force (RIF) in September of 2006. However, after September 2006, staff who 

remain in the positions targeted for elimination will be subject to RIF procedures. 

NEW POSITIONS

CRS is redirecting its resources to acquire new and different support capacities 

generated by technological changes and new work processes. CRS will be competitively filling these new support positions in the near future. There will be fewer positions and some will be classified and filled at lower grade levels. 

The new positions are summarized below. A description of existing positions is included to provide a context for the new capacities. The language used to describe 

the duties of these positions is primarily derived from the relevant, official position 

descriptions. 

Administrative Support Positions 

GS–8 Senior Production Assistant (current) 

Performs duties related to the preparation of various written products that CRS 

produces for the Congress to include Reports, Issue Briefs and memoranda. Supports research analysts throughout the entire production process to include the creation, formatting, styling, editing and appearance of written documents and in the 
63 

development of graphics and tables when needed. Is responsible for product delivery 

and for working with the Electronic Research Products Office (ERPO) to finalize 

products, making changes as needed following the review of the ERPO editors or 

the CRS Review Office. May use computer on-line systems to retrieve information 

in support of the researcher’s written products. 

GS–7 Administrative Support Assistant (new) 

Performs support functions related to the administrative operations of the division. Implements and maintains division-wide administrative control systems to include confidential division files, correspondence tracking and the disposition of 

records. Ensures that division staff at all levels are fully informed on CRS and Library administrative practices, procedures and other administrative requirements. 

Initiates the development of new and revised administrative policies and procedures 

for the division as appropriate. Works with the supervisor to ensure that division 

managers and staff requests for training and travel are processed in an accurate 

and timely manner and tracks the progress of these requests through to approval. 

Uses appropriate software applications to generate administrative documents and 

forms. Serves as the central point of contact for all division staff regarding questions 

and issues related to the web- based time and attendance system. 

GS–11 Senior Production/Administrative Coordinator (current) 

Oversees the function that supports the preparation of CRS written products including managing the production work-flow, clearing products for style, format, and 

editorial accuracy, maintaining records of the location of research products, transmitting written products to the CRS Review Office and the Electronic Research 

Products Office and other duties related to the support of the research production/ 

preparation function in the division. Provides training and trouble-shooting service 

for the senior production assistants and other support staff in the division. Helps 

to create macros, templates and other guides for the support staff to use in supporting research analysts as they prepare their written products. Advises the support staff on how to meet the needs of division authors with respect to design, format and presentation of written products. Works with division management to ensure uniformity of style and format for division research products consistent with 

Service-wide standards. 

GS–11 Supervisory Administrative Coordinator (new) 

Advises the head of the division (the assistant director) on the administrative 

needs and requirements of the division, serves as the principal point of contact for 

the division, and supervises the work of administrative and clerical division staff. 

Coordinates with senior CRS and Library managers and with subordinate offices to 

communicate and interpret administrative/management assignments, recommend 

appropriate action or suggest alternative approaches, and follow up as appropriate 

to ensure proper and timely response to assignments. Manages the division’s official 

correspondence and a wide variety of correspondence from within and outside the 

agency. Manages the assistant director’s calendar and initiates contacts and oversees logistical planning and preparation for the assistant director’s meetings. Undertakes special administrative projects or management studies either individually or 

as a participant on task forces or working groups. Monitors and evaluates the activities of contractors assigned to perform clerical activities for the division. 

Technical Support Positions 

GS–12 Senior Technical Support Assistant (current) 

Provides de-centralized technical support to divisions and offices. Independently 

analyzes operations with requirements that can be met through limited 

customization of existing hardware components and software packages. Installs 

standard and specialized software. Independently designs, develops, documents, and 

manages systems that require important but limited customization. Keeps such systems fully operational, integrated with other CRS systems, and current with new 

developments in technology. Creates documentation for end users of systems; typically the entire staff of a division or office. Serves as trouble shooter for various 

computer problems encountered by division/office staff. Prepares documentation and 

establishes procedures to assist other technical support assistants to diagnose and 

solve trouble calls in a number of technical areas supported by the CRS Technology 

Office. Develops and delivers training courses for groups of 10–12. 

GS–11 Technical Writer-Editor (new) 

Plans, writes, and edits a variety of technical documents, including guidelines, reference materials, fact sheets, website entries, and standard operating procedures; 

ensures accuracy, consistency, format, completeness, spelling, punctuation, capital-
64 

ization, and syntax. Produces technical material for a variety of offices, and determines the adequacy of materials prepared by others. Utilizes substantial subject 

matter knowledge to interpret technical material for a variety of audiences. 

GS–14 Information Technology Specialist—INFOSEC (new) 

Serves as a technical authority and assists in planning, directing, and coordinating the implementation and execution of approved security policies, programs, 

and services related to Information Technology (IT) systems. Oversees or coordinates the preparation of security testing and implementation plans. Plans and investigates mission-critical cybersecurity violations that affect the integrity of an 

agency-wide IT infrastructure, and develops long-range plans for IT security systems. Leads the implementation of security programs for the Service designed to anticipate, assess, and minimize system vulnerabilities. Conducts difficult and sensitive computer forensic investigations, and ensures the integration of IT programs 

and services. 

GS–7 Office Equipment Administrator (new) 

Monitors the CRS copy centers, determining whether print jobs require assistance 

to be completed; tracks work produced for accuracy, quality, and production timeliness; and analyzes system down-time. Monitors CRS copiers and other office equipment, and identifies obvious trends, or deviations that could impact services provided. Provides support and assists in the planning, review, and reporting of data/ 

statistical results of programs and project studies, and compiles statistical data to 

assist with the overall evaluation and selection of equipment. 

Status of New Positions 

CRS posted the vacancy announcements for the supervisory administrative coordinator positions on October 18, 2005 and the administrative support assistant positions on October 24, 2005. CRS anticipates that vacancy announcements for the 

other three technical positions will open by the end of November. 

CRS is also creating quality assurance editor and publication-support positions to 

assist with the dissemination of CRS products to the Congress. Work on these positions are underway. Vacancy announcements for these positions may be open by 

late-November. 

Affected staff may apply for these new positions under the Library of Congress 

merit selection process. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 HIRES

In addition to filling positions in the new support areas described above, CRS will 

continue hiring staff to sustain analytic capacity and prepare for the succession of 

senior leadership. While the total CRS workforce is smaller today than in 1999, the 

proportion of analytic staff compared to the total workforce has increased. As of September 15, 2005, CRS analytic capacity represents 333 permanent, full time staff 

members (47.9 percent) of a total staff of 694 compared to 287 permanent, full-time 

staff members (40.8 percent) of a total staff of 703 in fiscal year 1999. The 2006 

staffing decisions were made in the context of honoring the congressionally supported succession plan of the late 1990s and maintaining a Service-wide infrastructure in a manner that adequately addresses analytic capacity and research needs. 

In fiscal year 2006, unless faced with an across-the-board rescission, the Service 

anticipates hiring four attorneys in American Law; eight analysts in Domestic Social 

Policy; six analysts in Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade; four analysts in Government and Finance; and six analysts in Resources, Science and Industry. Consistent 

with succession planning, CRS will be filling positions for a deputy associate director for finance and a deputy associate director for congressional affairs. The Service 

will continue to review the current section head duties as part of CRS’ ongoing succession planning. 

CONCLUSION

CRS is making every effort to manage its resources so as to perform efficiently 

and effectively its statutory mission of service to the Congress, while at the same 

time coping with the constrained Legislative Branch budget that has prevailed in 

recent years. The Service has been directed by the Congress to find ways to streamline its operations, eliminate unnecessary duplication, explore options for 

outsourcing appropriate functions, and to align resources in a cost-effective manner 

while achieving performance goals that meet congressional needs. 

The decisions outlined in this report were made with full recognition of and appreciation for the contributions made by affected CRS staff, and with much attention 

focused on finding ways to mitigate the impact on those employees. As described, 
65 

CRS is providing time for the affected staff to make personal decisions by delaying 

implementation for a full year. CRS also has obtained from the Congress authority 

to offer separation incentive payments and approval from the Office of Personnel 

Management to offer a voluntary early retirement option. The Service also is applying resources through September 2006 to assist staff during the phase out of their 

positions by offering them services which include: career counseling, job search assistance, and retirement counseling. 

In summary, obligations for good stewardship have led the Service to make some 

very difficult decisions. CRS has done so in keeping with recent congressional directives and budget decisions and only after a thorough examination of all available 

options and proper attention to the implications for staff. 

APPENDIX A: EXCERPTS FROM THE FISCAL YEARS 2005 AND 2006 REPORTS OF THE

HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES ON APPROPRIATIONS

Fiscal Year 2005 

From U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4755, 108th Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 

108–577 (Washington: GPO, 2005). Excerpts: 

Legislative Branch Wide Matters 

Budget requests.—The Committee wants to underscore the fact that with record 

deficits, a war on terrorism, and troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 

budget requests from the agencies of the Legislative Branch cannot continue to be 

presented with requested increases as high as 50 percent. The Committee expects 

that future budget submissions will take into consideration the overall budget constraints placed on the entire Federal budget and that more reasonable budget requests will be forthcoming in future years. (p. 4) 

Potential for savings.—. . . The Committee directs the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to work closely with the head of each Legislative Branch entity to: (1) identify opportunities that will streamline the agency organization and eliminate organizational layers; (2) outsource operations that will result in providing higher quality 

and less costly services; (3) utilize existing technology to enhance operational efficiency; (4) implement management changes, which will increase efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations; and (5) where applicable apply the ‘‘Federal Activities 

Inventory Reform Act’’, and ‘‘Chief Financial Officers Act’’, and the ‘‘Government 

Performance and Results Act’’. The committee directs that the GAO report its findings, including recommendations for changes, to the Committee on Appropriations 

of the House and Senate by January 10, 2005. Each agency of the Legislative 

Branch should be prepared to discuss recommended changes during the fiscal year 

2006 appropriation hearing cycle. (pp. 4–5) 

Outsourcing.—. . . the Committee directs that each agency of the Legislative 

Branch examine potential outsourcing opportunities of the following areas: Information management operations and site management; building facilities and grounds 

management and operations; human resources management and operations; training functions; vehicle maintenance and management; physical security; financial operations; and printing operations. Each agency is expected to not only examine the 

areas outlined, but also examine other activities and functions that are unique to 

each agency to determine if further outsourcing opportunities exist. (p. 5) 

Congressional Research Service 

The Committee is concerned with the potential for duplication of support activities 

between the Congressional Research Service Unit and the Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses account. The Committee funds centralized support organizations 

such as Information Technology Services, Human Resources Services, Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer, and Integrated Support Services to provide Library-wide 

support services, which helps to reduce duplicate systems and processes throughout 

the Library accounts. Of particular note, in this year’s budget request, the Library 

is requesting in two separate accounts funding for the Alternate Computer Facility 

and XML capabilities which may reflect duplication of support services. The Committee directs that the Library of Congress conduct a study of such functions as information technology, human resources, financial services, space management, and 

other support functions to determine whether any duplicate or overlapping activities 

exist. The findings of the study are to be provided to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate prior to the fiscal year 2006 budget submission and 

any budgetary reductions or realignments be so reflected in the fiscal year 2006 request. (p. 24) 
66 

From Statement of Managers accompanying the conference report to H.R. 4755, 

H. Rept. 108–792, see Congressional Record (daily edition), November 19, 2004, p. 

H10770. 

The conferees emphasize to the Legislative Branch agencies that the large budgetary increases requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget submissions cannot be sustained. The conferees encourage the agencies to submit more reasonable budget requests for fiscal year 2006, and thereafter. 

Fiscal Year 2006 

From U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 

109–139 (Washington: GPO, 2006). 

Legislative Branch Wide Matters 

Mandatory and Price Level Increases.—After reviewing budget presentation materials submitted by Legislative Branch entities, it is apparent to the Committee that 

there is a wide variance in how the agencies formulate and present budget estimates, especially estimates for mandatory, or uncontrollable budget increases. To facilitate the Committee’s review and analysis of budget requests, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to review and evaluate the basis of each Legislative Branch agency’s budget estimates with the exception of those of the House 

and the Senate. This review should place particular emphasis on evaluating the 

basis of each agency’s estimates of uncontrollable costs, including what the agency 

presents as ‘‘mandatory’’ and ‘‘price level expenses’’. GAO shall recommend to the 

Committee budget formulation policy changes that address the composition of estimates as well as presentation format. Also, GAO is directed to examine each agency’s treatment of Full-Time Equivalents (FTE’s) in its budget submission and recommend consistent guidelines each agency can follow in formulating, presenting, 

and justifying its FTE requirements. GAO should also evaluate each agency’s treatment of non-recurring requirements. This evaluation should be of requirements 

below the program level not simply a list of non-recurring programs. GAO shall recommend to the Committee a consistent analytical approach, which can be used by 

each agency to identify non-recurring requirements of individual programs and reflect those changes in budget presentation materials. GAO shall report to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate the results of its efforts by October 1, 2005 to provide sufficient time for the Committee to review and analyze so 

that Legislative Branch agencies incorporate the appropriate changes in the formulation of their fiscal year 2007 budget requests. (pp. 4–5) 

Legislative Branch Agency Reforms.—The Congress and the nation are faced with 

increased demands for Federal funds for every increasing domestic and international program. The Committee is impressed with the management and operational reforms implemented in several Legislative Branch agencies over the past 

few years, including the Government Printing Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Chief Administrative Office of the House of Representatives. 

The Committee believes that other legislative agencies can benefit by the examples 

set by these agencies. Further opportunities exist for increases in efficiency resulting from new technology, performance based management, and other management 

improvements. The Committee understands that organizational reform is difficult, 

however, the task can be achieved if strong and dynamic leadership is attained. The 

Committee extends the following advice gleaned from these successful agencies. It 

is critical that agency heads look to the future in planning these endeavors and that 

mid-managers and employees are participants as well as stakeholders in the process. The leaders and employees are guided in developing and embracing their own 

logical and clear strategic vision for the organization’s future. Agency management 

needs to identify leaders at all levels that will embrace change, and never lose sight 

of the most important asset of any organization, the staff and workforce. The Committee expects that all agencies will continue to look within for ways to complete 

their missions by using the guidance and experiences of their successful sister agencies as models to reduce the demand for additional staff and larger budget increases 

in the coming fiscal years. (p. 5) 

Review statutes of legislative branch agency heads.—There currently exist various 

laws, processes, and practices governing the selection, appointment, removal, compensation, and term of service of the Heads and the Deputies of various agencies 

in the Legislative Branch, including the Office of Compliance, the Congressional 

Budget Office, and the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. The Committee suggests 

that the Joint Leadership of Congress, in order to establish uniformity, should re-
67 

view, evaluate and consider the appropriate changes to current legislation and regulations governing these positions. (p. 6) 

From U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 

109–89 (Washington: GPO, 2005). 

Government Performance and Results Act 

The Committee supports the applicability of many Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) principles to the Legislative Branch. GPRA encourages greater 

efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in Federal spending, and requires agencies to set goals and use performance measures for management and budgeting. 

While most Legislative Branch agencies have developed strategic plans, several 

agencies have not effectively dealt with major management problems and lack reliable data to verify and validate performance. While Legislative Branch agencies are 

not required to comply with GPRA, the Committee believes the spirit and intent of 

the Results Act should be applied to these agencies. The Committee intends to monitor agencies’ progress in developing and implementing meaningful performance 

measures, describing how such measures will be verified and validated, linking performance measures to day-to-day activities, and coordinating across ‘‘sister’’ agencies. The Committee directs all legislative branch agencies to submit their plans for 

achieving this goal within 90 days of enactment of this Act. (pp. 3–4) 

Library of Congress 

The Committee recognizes the high priority of the Library’s research mission in 

support of the Congress, which is reflected in the amount recommended for the Congressional Research Service. (p. 35) 

The Committee is concerned about the lack of transparency in the Library of Congress budget presentation. It is not always clear and understandable. The budget 

presentation materials do not present meaningful programmatic information from a 

zero-based perspective that allow the Committee to determine how priorities are established and where tradeoffs could be made. Therefore, the Committee directs the 

Library of Congress to develop a budget presentation and justification package for 

the fiscal year 2007 budget cycle that clearly addresses rates and assumptions used 

in the base as well as a clear description for each program of what drives demand 

for the program, what the nature of the program’s workload is, and what service 

or outcome each base program is intended to produce. A clear description of new 

program starts and a detailed break out of rates and assumptions associated with 

cost estimates for those programs including demand, workload, and outcome should 

also be provided along with a clear explanation of how each program relates to goals 

and objectives set forth in the Library’s strategic plan. The Committee expects the 

Library will consult with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the development of this new presentation package. (p. 35) 

APPENDIX B: FINDINGS FROM THE PRODUCTION SUPPORT, TECHNICAL SUPPORT

ASSISTANT, AND AUDIO-VISUAL FUNCTIONS

Summary of the Program Activity reviews 

Methodology 

In 2005 CRS undertook assessments of its production, technical support, and 

audio-visual needs, as well as the functions currently provided within the Service 

in those areas. Data for these studies came from a variety of sources, including multiple discussions with potentially affected staff; a thorough review of all relevant position functions; initial and subsequent meetings with each assistant director and 

deputy assistant director, some associate directors, and a sample of analysts, attorneys, editors, and section heads; and the use of structured questions. 

Production and Administrative Support Functional Review: Findings Summary from the January 2005 Study 

The study of production and administrative support functions found that the technical needs of research and analytic staff have changed. The study found that the 

technical skills of newly hired analysts and attorneys often exceed those that the 

production staff regularly demonstrate. Concurrently, there is a need for increasingly advanced and specialized technical skills to do the more sophisticated productpreparation work now required. 

Production staff indicated that they primarily perform administrative functions 

(e.g., logging ISIS requests, recording and reporting time and attendance, managing 

and ordering supplies, and performing general receptionist activities). Some study 

participants stated that some production staff do not consider currently needed 
68 

tasks as part of their duties and responsibilities. An example is importing data from 

a variety of sources and transforming that data into tables, graphs, and charts for 

inclusion into CRS products. Several production staff reported oftentimes not having 

enough work to keep them occupied full time. 

As a result, the current system has created unmet production needs and shifted 

product-preparation demands, particularly for assistance in creating graphics and 

obtaining editorial assistance. Some analysts have come to rely upon the Electronic 

Research Products Office and the CRS Technology Office (TO) for assistance with 

these tasks. 

Technical Support Assistant Functional Review: Findings Summary from May 

2005 Study 

Because CRS research and analytic staff have become more technically sophisticated, the need for basic technical services has decreased. The study found that 

newly hired and other technically sophisticated staff are more likely to try to diagnose and solve problems themselves before contacting a technical support assistant 

(TSA). Also, the study found TSA skill levels inconsistently meet the needs of CRS 

staff. 

TSAs provide a wide array of technical support assistance: most work involves resolving hardware, software, CPU, password, and network issues. Some also assist 

with special projects, provide graphics/mapping support, develop guidance documents, and assist TO with Service-wide projects. Study participants noted that work 

required of TSAs is not standardized across CRS but instead varies by division and 

office. 

The current decentralized organizational structure does not ensure consistent 

technical expertise. Across the research divisions TSAs report to different levels of 

staff (assistant director, deputy assistant director, project management coordinator, 

etc.), who prepare their performance reviews. Further, potential for duplication of 

efforts among CRS help desk and user support units and TSAs is not cost-effective. 

Audio-Visual Support Functional Review: Findings Summary from August 

2005 Study 

Direct congressional demand for audio-visual products has been declining for more 

than ten years. And the need by CRS analysts for audio-visual support is uneven 

calling into question the need to retain a separate, in-house staff for this purpose. 
69 

APPENDIX C: SALARY, COMPENSATION, AND RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY FOR THE AFFECTED STAFF 

Job Class. Series Grade & Step Ret. Plan Job Title Annual Sal- ary Employer- Paid Bene- fits Total Cost 

PRODUCTION STAFF 

Staff Eligible for Full Retirement and Separation Incentive: 

301 ........................................................................................................................... 11–10 CSRS ... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator ............................ $69,614 $13,414 $83,028 301 ........................................................................................................................... 11–10 CSRS ... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator ............................ $69,614 $9,189 $78,802 301 ........................................................................................................................... 11–10 CSRS ... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator ............................ $69,614 $5,882 $75,496 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... FERS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $15,917 $67,999 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... FERS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $12,529 $64,612 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $12,296 $64,379 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $12,112 $64,195 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $12,040 $64,123 303 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... FERS ... Sr. Sp. Adm. Support Assistant ............................................. $52,082 $10,194 $62,276 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $7,980 $60,062 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $7,872 $59,954 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $7,673 $59,756 303 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Sp. Adm. Support Assistant ............................................. $52,082 $7,603 $59,685 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $4,509 $56,591 1411 ......................................................................................................................... 6–10 ... CSRS ... Library Technician .................................................................. $42,326 $7,135 $49,461 

Staff Eligible for Early Retirement and Separation Incentive: 

301 ........................................................................................................................... 11–10 CSRS ... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator ............................ $69,614 $13,556 $83,169 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... FERS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $15,917 $67,999 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $12,343 $64,426 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $12,040 $64,123 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $11,929 $64,011 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $7,874 $59,956 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $7,738 $59,820 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $7,673 $59,756 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $7,565 $59,648 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–9 ..... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $50,762 $7,864 $58,626 303 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... CSRS ... Sr. Special Adm. Support Assistant ...................................... $52,082 $4,509 $56,591 

Staff Eligible for Separation Incentive Only: 

301 ........................................................................................................................... 11–10 FERS ... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator ............................ $69,614 $24,119 $93,733 301 ........................................................................................................................... 11–10 FERS ... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator ............................ $69,614 $16,744 $86,358 344 ........................................................................................................................... 7–6 ..... FERS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $58,361 $16,141 $74,501 301 ........................................................................................................................... 11–8 ... CSRS ... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator ............................ $57,387 $12,668 $70,054 
70 

APPENDIX C: SALARY, COMPENSATION, AND RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY FOR THE AFFECTED STAFF—Continued 

Job Class. Series Grade & Step Ret. Plan Job Title Annual Sal- ary Employer- Paid Bene- fits Total Cost 

344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–9 ..... FERS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $50,762 $19,174 $69,936 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–8 ..... FERS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $49,420 $18,618 $68,038 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–10 ... FERS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $52,082 $13,848 $65,930 344 ........................................................................................................................... 8–8 ..... CSRS ... Sr. Production Assistant ........................................................ $49,420 $15,014 $64,434 1411 ......................................................................................................................... 5–9 ..... FERS ... Reference Assistant ............................................................... $37,001 $11,782 $48,783 1411 ......................................................................................................................... 5–9 ..... FERS ... Reference Clerk ...................................................................... $37,001 $11,484 $48,485 304 ........................................................................................................................... 4–5 ..... FERS ... Receptionist ........................................................................... $29,588 $5,553 $35,141 

Staff Not Eligible for Retirement or Separation Incentive: 

304 ........................................................................................................................... 4–1 ..... FERS ... Receptionist ........................................................................... $26,989 $8,750 $35,740 

Total Cost ............................................................................................................ ............. ............. ................................................................................................ .................. .................. $2,429,674 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

Staff Eligible for Full Retirement and Separation Incentive: 

2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–7 ... CSRS ... Sr. Technical Support Assistant ............................................ $77,027 $14,344 $91,370 

Staff Eligible for Early Retirement and Separation Incentive: 

2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–8 ... CSRS ... Sr. Technical Support Assistant ............................................ $81,769 $19,282 $101,051 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–7 ... CSRS ... Sr. Technical Support Assistant ............................................ $77,027 $14,404 $91,431 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–7 ... CSRS ... Sr. Technical Support Assistant ............................................ $77,027 $9,866 $86,893 

Staff Eligible for Separation Incentive Only: 

2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–10 FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $83,438 $23,220 $106,658 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–7 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $79,157 $26,739 $105,896 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–7 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $77,027 $21,662 $98,688 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–5 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $72,745 $24,425 $97,170 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–5 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $74,875 $20,292 $95,167 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–4 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $70,594 $24,506 $95,099 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–4 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $70,594 $24,211 $94,805 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–6 ... CSRS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $74,875 $18,496 $93,371 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–3 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $68,463 $24,090 $92,554 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–4 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $70,594 $20,079 $90,673 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–8 ... CSRS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $79,157 $10,050 $89,207 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–2 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $66,333 $22,736 $89,069 2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–2 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $66,333 $22,666 $88,999 
71 

2210 ......................................................................................................................... 12–4 ... FERS ... Sr. Technical Support Asst .................................................... $46,107 $16,289 $62,395 

Total Cost ............................................................................................................ ............. ............. ................................................................................................ .................. .................. $1,670,496 

AUDIO/VISUAL STAFF 

All Audio/Visual Staff Are Eligible for Early Retirement: These staff are in the 1071 

job classification series. To honor the privacy of the three individual staff members in this job series, CRS has not provided individual salary and cost data 

Total Cost ............................................................................................................ ............. ............. ................................................................................................ .................. .................. $330,793 Total CRS Costs for 59 Affected Staff ............................................................... ............. ............. ................................................................................................ .................. .................. $4,430,962 

APPENDIX D: DIVERSITY COMPOSITION OF THE AFFECTED STAFF 

[Breakdown of CRS Staff by Gender and Race Categories As of September 15, 2005] 

Category 

Total CRS Perm/ 

Indef Workforce 

Affected Staff by Category 

Number Percent 

Production Support Technical Support Assistants Audio-Visual Total Affected Staff 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Female .................................................................................................................................................................. 357 51.4 33 86.8 7 38.9 ............ ............ 40 67.8 Male ...................................................................................................................................................................... 337 48.6 5 13.2 11 61.1 3 100.0 19 32.2 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 694 100.0 38 100.0 18 100.0 3 100.0 59 100.0 

Minority Composition ............................................................................................................................................ 224 32.3 30 78.9 11 61.1 ............ ............ 41 69.5 

Nat.Am/Alaskan ........................................................................................................................................... 5 0.7 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............Asian American ............................................................................................................................................ 31 4.5 1 2.6 ............ ............ ............ ............ 1 1.7 African-American ......................................................................................................................................... 171 24.6 28 73.7 10 55.6 ............ ............ 38 64.4 Hispanic ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 1 2.6 1 5.6 ............ ............ 2 3.4 

Non-Minority .......................................................................................................................................................... 470 67.7 8 21.1 7 38.9 3 100.0 18 30.5 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 694 100.0 38 100.0 18 100.0 3 100.0 59 100.0 
72 

APPENDIX E: TRANSITION RESOURCES PROVIDED TO AFFECTED STAFF

CRS is providing the following transition resources to affected staff: 

—an opportunity to participate in the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority 

(VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) programs. Deadline for applying is December 2, 2005. Staff have from December 19, 2005 

through January 3, 2006 to separate from the Library under these programs. 

As of Tuesday, November 1, 2005, 20 affected staff have applied for these programs; 

—a special briefing on the VERA/VSIP process restricted to eligible CRS staff, in 

coordination with the Library’s Office of Human Resources Services; 

—a two-day retirement seminar exclusively for these staff and their spouses. The 

seminar was held on October 26 and 27. Twenty-three affected staff members 

registered to attend, eighteen attended; 

—special individual retirement counseling, in coordination with the Library’s Office of Human Resources Services; 

—special training sessions on how to apply for positions using the Library’s automated hiring system. The Library’s Office of Human Resources conducted sessions on October 12 and 13. Individual sessions were arranged for those who 

were unable to attend either of the earlier sessions; 

—a career services web page where staff can access career-related information 

and links to numerous websites including job search engines, resume writing 

and interview guides, job fair announcements, training opportunities, and more; 

—services of a career counselor who will be available one day a week through 

September of 2006 to meet individually with staff and to present a career workshop once a month. The career counselor is expected to be available early November 2005; 

—a briefing on October 13, 2005 by a Reduction in Force (RIF) expert who has 

been used frequently by the Library of Congress for other RIFs to provide an 

overview of RIF procedures and to answer questions, to include any follow-up 

questions by phone and email; 

—briefings on September 28, 2005 for all affected staff to review these transition 

resources, and to give staff an opportunity to ask questions; and 

—continuous communications from the Associate Director for Workforce Development by e-mail to inform when positions they may be interested in opened, and 

other upcoming activities to include career fairs, reminders of registration deadlines, and to remind them that they may continue to submit any questions that 

they have during the transition. 

Question. In your testimony you state that extensive consultation took place before you decided to eliminate production support, computer technical support, and 

audio-visual functions. With whom did you consult? Was CRS staff in any way involved before you made your decision? 

Answer. Before the final decision was made, in addition to multiple meetings with 

the Service’s senior managers, CRS solicited input through a variety of venues including forums, one-on-one conversations, e-mail exchanges. CRS also held followup discussions with potentially affected staff as well as staff who use their services, 

including a sample of analysts, attorneys, and section heads (first-line supervisors). 

Question. Were the affected staffs given an opportunity to receive training that 

may have given them an opportunity to keep their job or to apply for other positions 

within CRS? 

Answer. The skills required for the Service’s new technical positions are quite different from those required for the older production support and technical positions 

that will be abolished. The specialized expertise required for these new positions 

cannot be acquired or developed through some selected training courses. 

In addition to traditional production support, the incumbents of the two older production support positions performed some administrative tasks as well. One of the 

current production support positions is supervisory/managerial at the GS–11 grade 

level; and, the other is non-supervisory at the GS–8 grade level. 

When CRS defined the new work tasks and developed the associated position descriptions, all of the administrative tasks were consolidated into two new positions, 

one is supervisory at the GS–11 grade level and the other was classified by the Library of Congress Human Resources Services as a GS–7, one grade level lower than 

the GS–8 production position. Both of the new administrative positions will have 

fewer incumbents (ten total) than the number of incumbents of the current production positions (33 total). So far, three of the affected staff were competitively selected for these ten new administrative positions. A fourth individual from the affected staff was also selected but declined the offer and chose instead to retire. 
73 

CRS affected staff continue to receive training for the work that they perform in 

their current positions. However, selecting particular individuals for specific training to improve their credentials for a new job could be seen as running counter to 

merit-selection principles inherent in OPM regulations implementing the Government Employee Training Act. Information provided in the following questions addresses the issues of training staff for future positions. 

Question. What actions have you taken to work with the rest of the Library to 

find positions for the remaining 31 staff? 

Answer. CRS and the Library will begin the process of seeking placements for the 

remaining staff in June. The data and conditions for placing the remaining staff are 

dictated by law, regulation, and the CRS collective bargaining agreement, which 

govern when a reduction-in-force is established. 

When the staffing changes were announced last September, it was the Director’s 

hope that by providing a 12-month notice, separation incentives, voluntary early retirement opportunities, and transition services that all 59 individuals would vacate 

the positions before September 30, 2006. At this time, 29 of the 59 affected staff 

have retired, resigned, or secured other positions. In the meantime, CRS continues 

to provide a variety of career counseling services to affected staff and to provide 

weekly notices of CRS and Library posted positions that may be of interest to them. 

Question. How closely have you worked with the new Center for Learning and Development in the Library to assist affected staff in training for current and future 

positions in the Library? 

Answer. Staff from the CRS Office of Workforce Development worked closely with 

the Library’s Center for Learning and Development in identifying 600 online courses 

that would provide a broad array of training for Library staff as it pertains to their 

current positions. The availability of courses has been communicated to all CRS 

staff and a number of CRS staff members, including the affected staff, have taken 

online courses. 

The On-line Learning Center has been a topic of discussion at the weekly CRS 

Research Policy Council meetings of senior managers who are advised to encourage 

staff to enroll in the online training. As a result, a number of affected staff have 

taken advantage of these training opportunities. In addition, the Career Services 

Web Page that was established specifically for affected staff includes a link to the 

Online Learning Center. 

Providing training for future positions becomes more complex. The Government 

Employee Training Act (GETA) permits training ‘‘which will improve individual and 

organizational performance and assist in achieving the agency’s mission and performance goals.’’ [5 USC4101(4)] OPM implementing regulations provide that ‘‘mission-related training’’ includes training that improves an employee’s current job performance and training that ‘‘[a]llows for expansion or enhancement of an employee’s 

current job [or e]nables an employee to perform needed or potentially needed duties 

outside the current job at the same level of responsibility.’’ [5 CFR 410.101 (d)] 

Retraining ‘‘to address an individual’s skills obsolescence in the current position 

and/or training and development to prepare an individual for a different occupation, 

in the same agency, in another government agency, or in the private sector’’ is also 

permitted under OPM regulations. [5 CFR 410.101(e)] The selection of employees for 

training opportunities, however, must follow merit system principles. [5 CFR 

410.302 (a)(1)] Each agency must establish criteria for the ‘‘fair and equitable selection and assignment of employees to training consistent with merit system principles.’’ [5 CFR 410.306(a)] 

Merit system principles are particularly applicable to training designed to prepare 

employees for advancement. Thus, OPM’s Training Policy Handbook provides that 

‘‘[a]gencies’ training programs must consider all employees fairly’’ and that ‘‘[a]gency 

merit promotion procedures must be followed in selecting employees for training 

that is primarily to prepare trainees for advancement and that is not directly related to improving performance in their current positions.’’ 

Selecting particular employees to be accorded specific training designed to improve their advancement possibilities or to qualify them for other positions could be 

seen to run counter to merit selection principles. The Library and CRS have developed a merit selection process for filling positions, and CRS also applies competitive 

procedures to its longer term details within the agency and to designating section 

heads. The GETA and implementing regulations would also seem to dictate that 

similar principles be applied in the provision of training. 

The focus of all training opportunities provided to staff complies with the Service’s 

obligation to enhance staff skills for the positions currently held, rather than to provide training for possible future positions that could be seen as running counter to 

merit-selection principles inherent in OPM regulations implementing the GETA. 
74 

Question. It is my understanding that of the 59 staff being eliminated, nearly 70 

percent are minorities. What are your plans to address the major loss of minority 

employees in CRS? 

Answer. CRS is dedicated to maintaining a diverse workforce. When CRS announced its plan to eliminate three functions, the diversity profile of the Service was 

32.3 percent minority. If all of the affected staff would have left and no new hires 

added, the CRS workforce would have been reduced to 635 and the racial and ethnic 

profile of that reduced staff would have reflected a minority population of 28.8 percent. The proportion of Asian Americans would have increased from 4.5 percent to 

4.7 percent; Native Americans would have increased from .7 percent to .8 percent; 

Hispanics would have remained the same at 2.4 percent; and the proportion of African Americans would have decreased from 24.6 percent to 20.9 percent. 

Instead, as of February 28, 2006, after the retirement of 23 affected staff, attrition 

unrelated to the workforce re-engineering, and the hiring of new staff in accordance 

with the CRS hiring plan, 31.1 percent of CRS’ total permanent/indefinite workforce 

of 685 is minority; .7 percent Native American, 4.7 percent Asian American, 23.1 

percent African American, and 2.6 percent Hispanic. 

CRS has filled four (4) of the new positions (with 12 incumbents). Of the twelve 

incumbents hired, nine (75 percent) are minorities, and all of whom are African 

American females. 

CRS will continue to use national recruitment and hiring programs and sources 

to attract minority applicants to CRS. These programs include targeting universities 

and public policy schools with high minority enrollments to serve as recruitment 

sources for entry-level professional positions, and forging special connections with 

minority-serving organizations such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

the United Negro College Fund, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional 

Hispanic Caucus, and others. In addition, CRS continues to use programs such as 

the CRS Law Recruit Program, the Student Diversity Internship Program, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities National Internship Program, and the 

Federal Presidential Management Fellowship Program to recruit minorities for CRS 

positions. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee stands in recess and we will 

meet next on March 15 at 10:30 a.m., when we will take testimony 

from the Secretary of the Senate and Architect of the Capitol on 

their fiscal year 2007 budget requests. In addition, we will hear 

from witnesses regarding progress of the Capitol Visitor Center as 

part of the monthly oversight of that particular project. 

I thank the participants today for sharing their views with us. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, March 1, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 

15.] 
(75) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Allard and Durbin. 

U.S. SENATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF EMILY REYNOLDS, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MARY SUIT JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

CHRIS DOBY, FINANCIAL CLERK 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee will come to order. Good 

morning everybody. We meet today to take testimony on the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request for the Secretary of the Senate and the 

Architect of the Capitol, and review progress of the Capitol Visitor 

Center (CVC) construction. The legislative branch budget request 

totals roughly $4.2 billion, an increase of $460 million or 12 percent 

over the current year. 

While most agencies in the President’s budget would be frozen at 

current levels, a number of the agencies before this subcommittee 

have proposed very substantial increases and we will need to scrutinize these requests very carefully. We will have three separate 

panels today. Secretary Emily Reynolds will testify first, she’s accompanied by Assistant Secretary of the Senate Mary Suit Jones, 

and the new Financial Clerk of the Senate Chris Doby. 

Our second panel will be the Architect of the Capitol, Alan 

Hantman, and our third panel to discuss progress of the Capitol 

Visitor Center construction will include Mr. Hantman, CVC Project 

Executive Bob Hixon, and GAO representatives Bernie Ungar and 

Terrell Dorn. 

I extend a welcome to our witnesses this morning. Ms. Reynolds, your office is requesting a budget of about $24 million, an increase 

of roughly $1 million, or just above 5 percent over fiscal year 2006. 

This budget would support the 26 departments that are part of the 

Office of the Secretary and would accommodate cost of living and 
76 

merit increases. And we’ll now proceed to the first panel. Welcome 

Ms. Reynolds. You may proceed with your testimony. It’s good to 

see you. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you Mr. Chairman, it’s an honor to be 

with you. We’re, of course, very grateful for your leadership as our 

subcommittee chairman, and we appreciate this opportunity to talk 

about the work of the Secretary’s office. I’d like to ask that my full 

statement, which, of course, includes our complete department reports, be submitted for the record. 

Today I would just like to give you a brief overview of the Secretary’s operation and most importantly that budget request for fiscal year 2007 that you mentioned. As you said, we’ve requested 

about $24 million; $22 million of that is in salary cost and $1.9 million for operating expenses. That slight increase as you’ve referenced is in cost of living allowance (COLA) and merit increases 

so that we can continue to attract and retain the talent that the 

Senate requires and deserves for the critical day to day operations 

that we provide. 

And I’d like to take a couple of minutes today and just highlight 

some of the work of the past year, since we were all last together 

at this hearing. There are three key words that come to mind in 

reflecting on the Secretary’s operation. And those are continuity, 

creativity and collaboration. That’s how our office functions and I 

want to mention in particular in terms of continuity, because in so 

many respects we are the institutional memory of the Senate. We 

take very seriously the responsibility of passing that knowledge 

along from generation to generation, incoming class to incoming 

class, office to office. Our legislative department, the great folks 

that you see on the floor of the Senate each and every day, continue to cross train among their various specialties, and about half 

of that staff is cross trained. 

We’re also blessed in that a large number of people come to serve 

the Senate for an extended period of time, but it makes it all the 

more important when you begin to lose that institutional memory 

in retirements that we try to anticipate those changes and work toward an appropriate line of succession. And at all times, we strive 

to attract and retain the best talent possible. Individuals for whom 

coming to the Senate to serve this body as their career is a high 

priority. 

And, of course, on a much broader scale, it’s our responsibility to 

prepare daily so that you and your colleagues can carry out your 

constitutional responsibilities under any circumstance. So for us 

that continuity has both a daily impact and a much broader view 

as well. 

I mention creativity as well and I hope that we bring a certain 

level of creativity in each of our 26 departments. And I’d like to 

just highlight five things today that we’re doing. 

A perfect example of that creativity is the Senate’s website. And 

our new home page in particular which we’re very proud to have 

the chance to show off and talk about a little bit. All of our lives 

have been changed dramatically by the worldwide web, and the 

Senate is no exception. Senate.gov now celebrates a decade of service to the Senate community and the general public and received 

an astonishing 50 million visits last year. That’s five times as many 
77 

as just 5 years ago, so remarkable growth in terms of the public’s 

access to senate.gov. And with that, thanks to the support of this 

subcommittee we unveiled a handsome new home page in January. 

There’s more content on the front page, the site also provides site 

wide searches from every page, and, of course, most importantly 

those direct links to the Members’ home pages. 

I’m really delighted that U.S. News took note of the new homepage, and described it as a rich new website and one that’s much 

easier to research. I also mentioned to you when we were here last 

year, that our historical office had underway a project of a pictorial 

directory, with the images of all Senators who have served since 

1789, by State and by class. That book ‘‘Faces of the Senate’’ was 

completed in November and it really is a treasure. It was a monumental effort on the part of our Senate photo historian. And it was 

interesting in that as she reached out to historical societies, museums and other organizations in trying to locate as many images as 

possible, the project attracted the attention of a National Guardsman from Vermont who was stationed in Iraq. He was working on 

a historical project for his unit, and he e-mailed our photo historian 

saying I don’t have a lot of time to assist, but with my own project 

I’m finding resources out there I never knew existed. And amazingly enough, he helped us locate six images of former Members for 

whom we had no previous record. 

The gift shop I want to mention, a tremendous presence here in 

the Senate. And we’ve enhanced the gift shop operation by adding 

an online presence to our intranet Webster so that our Senate community can more easily see the vast array of products that we have 

available. 

I’m also proud that in this bicentennial year of Constantino 

Brumidi’s birth, the artist of the Capitol, we’ve added a product 

line with Brumidi featured merchandise so that our merchandise 

reflects the rich history of the Capitol and hopefully for people it 

has some educational value as well. 

You may also recall, that 2 years ago we completed the publication of the Senate’s fine arts catalogue. A beautiful volume, the 

companion volume, a catalogue of our graphics art collection will 

be available later this year. And just like the fine arts publication, 

it will be a magnificent presentation of the 900 historic engravings 

and lithographs in the Senate collection. 

I had the opportunity to speak last week with a member of our 

curatorial advisory board, and she said that she believed that this 

publication will be very well received in the arts community, the 

academic community, as a first ever glance if you will at this tremendous collection of the Senate’s and it’s an excellent research 

tool. So we’ll have that to you later this year. I’m excited about it. 

In the Senate reception room, thanks to the leadership of Senator Dodd, we will add an important representation from the 18th 

century. And that’s the addition of a mural that will commemorate 

the two authors of the Great or Connecticut Compromise. That 

mural will depict the authors of that compromise, Roger Sherman, 

and Oliver Ellsworth and will be unveiled later this year. 

And finally in terms of collaboration, so much of what we do each 

and every day is dependent on a team approach, among our departments working with the Architect of the Capitol, working with 
78 

members of the Senate community and especially with our Sergeant at Arms. And once again I’d love to give three quick examples. I want to publicly thank and commend the Sergeant at Arms, 

and this subcommittee without whose support the project would 

not have been possible for the completion of the new Senate support facility. From our gift shop, stationery, the curator, library, 

our disbursing operation, having that state-of-the-art storage space 

will make a difference each and every day in terms of the level of 

support we provide our Senate community. The facility is a welcome addition and should serve our needs for years to come. 

One of the most important services that you and your colleagues 

offer the folks at home is providing flags that are flown over the 

Capitol, and we have an exciting pilot project underway with 26 offices and I believe your office is one, to streamline that process of 

the purchase of pre-flown flags. It’s become cumbersome at times, 

and again thanks to this pilot, we should have real success and report back to you on that along the way. 

And finally our legislative information system, another project 

generously funded by this subcommittee, we’ve made tremendous 

progress again this year. Again a team effort between our LIS Office and most especially the Senate Legislative Counsel. Already 

this year, over 95 percent of the bills introduced in this session of 

the 109th Congress have been written and formatted through the 

XML authoring application known as LEXA. So we’re very proud 

of that milestone. 

I often marvel that the first Secretary of the Senate carried out 

his responsibilities alone, in the first years of the Senate’s existence. By the time he died in office in 1814, he had convinced his 

appropriators to allow him to hire two clerks. As much as things 

have changed and as our responsibilities have grown through the 

years, the three fundamental responsibilities of our office, to provide the legislative, financial, and administrative support to this 

institution remain at the heart of what we do, each and every day. 

It’s our duty and our honor to carry out these functions for the Senate. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

On behalf of our entire team, we thank this subcommittee Mr. 

Chairman, for your support and I look forward to questions. Thank 

you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EMILY J. REYNOLDS

Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, 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 2007. 

Detailed information about the work of the 26 departments of the Office of the 

Secretary is provided in the annual reports which follow. I am pleased to provide 

this statement to highlight the achievements of the Office and the outstanding work 

of our dedicated employees. 

My statement includes: Presenting the fiscal year 2007 budget request; implementing mandated systems: financial management information system (FMIS) and 

legislative information system (LIS); Capitol Visitor Center; continuity of operations 

planning; and maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial 

and administrative services. 
79 

PRESENTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

I am requesting a total fiscal year 2007 budget of $24,066,000. The fiscal year 

2007 budget request is comprised of $22,166,000 in salary costs and $1,900,000 for 

the operating budget of the Office of the Secretary. The salary budget represents 

an increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget as a result of (1) the costs associated 

with the annual Cost of Living Adjustment in the amount of $654,000 and (2) an 

additional $646,000 for merit increases and other staffing. The operating budget 

represents a decrease of $80,000 from fiscal year 2006. The funding for the study 

on employment compensation, hiring and benefits practices, included in last year’s 

funding, is a non-reoccurring expense. 

The net effect of my total budget request for fiscal year 2007 is an increase of 

$1,220,000. 

Our request in the operating budget is a sound one, enabling us to meet our operating needs and provide the necessary services to the United State Senate through 

our legislative, financial and administrative offices. 

In reference to the salary budget, first and foremost, 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 

Item 

Amount available 

fiscal year 2006, 

Public Law 109– 

55 

Budget estimate 

fiscal year 2007 Difference 

Departmental operating budget: 

Executive office ................................................................................. $630,000 $550,000 ¥80,000 

Administrative services ..................................................................... 1,290,000 1,290,000 ........................

Legislative services ........................................................................... 60,000 60,000 ........................

Total operating budget ................................................................. 1,980,000 1,900,000 ¥80,000 

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 offices. Consistent with the 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. The goal is to 

move to a paperless voucher system, improve the Web FMIS system, and make payroll and accounting system improvements. 

Over the last two years work has been underway to update and simplify the underlying technology of Web FMIS, basically replacing all Visual Basic Client/Server 

and Cold Fusion Web technology with WebSphere web pages thereby creating a 

‘‘thin client’’ application that can be accessed via an intranet browser. In August 

2004 Web FMIS r9.0 for pilot offices, which was a complete rewriting of the Web 

FMIS functionality using all intranet based pages, was implemented. By the end of 

April, all Web FMIS users were using the intranet version of Web FMIS. 

During fiscal year 2005 and the first half of fiscal year 2006, improvements to 

Web FMIS were as follows: 

—In the November 2004 release, additional functionality identified by the pilot offices was addressed. This new release was provided to new offices of the 109th 

Congress. In the February 2005 release, a security certificate was added to the 

Web FMIS web site (i.e., adding the ‘‘S’’ to https://webfmis.senate.gov) and 

changed the extracts for the nightly Web FMIS reporting cycle to use table-driven parameters rather than hard-coded ones. In April 2005, report and document 

printing was provided via Adobe, standard Senate software, rather than Web 

FMIS-specific files. This completed moving Web FMIS to the ‘‘zero-client’’ platform, an important milestone in providing critical systems in a disaster situation. With this change, the Rules Committee Audit staff moved from client-server based screens to intranet-based pages for their functions, Disbursing staff 

began to use ‘‘standard notepad text’’ in documenting corrections made to vouchers. In July 2005, the focus was on additional functionality for Disbursing, in-
80 

cluding new pages for the Inbox and Document Review functions, enhancements 

to the Advice of Change process and streamlining the document approval process. Technology was updated 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. 

—In May 2005, the SAVI system was upgraded, which enables Senate staff to 

check the status of reimbursements, whether via check or direct deposit, to enable its use by Macintosh computer users. 

—The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via check using 

the Checkwriter software. In 2006, Checkwriter release 6, which rewrites the 

security component, will be tested with implementation tentatively scheduled 

for summer 2006. 

—On Saturday, December 3, 2005, the Sergeant at Arms technical staff conducted 

a disaster recovery test of the Senate’s computing facilities, including the financial management information system (FMIS) functions. The test involved 

switching the Senate’s network from accessing systems at the Primary Computing Facility (PCF) to the backup facility, and powering down the PCF. 

The SAA’s primary purpose was to test the technical process of switching to 

our backup facility, and only a limited amount of time was available for functional testing. The SAA staff wanted to complete the exercise within a 12-hour 

window, including the time needed to switch us to the backup facility and back 

to the PCF. A two-hour functional testing window was expected. In the scenario, 

FMIS systems and data would be ‘‘failed-over’’ to the backup facility, and made 

available for testing during the functional testing window. The systems would 

then be ‘‘failed back’’ to the PCF, but the data would not be ‘‘failed back’’. Consequently, any changes made while testing at the backup facility would not be 

made to production data. 

Within the limited scope of what we were able to test, most of the critical 

components of FMIS were successfully tested. A request has been made to the 

SAA that disaster recovery tests be conducted twice a year and that additional 

system components be tested at each successive event. 

—The computing infrastructure for FMIS is provided by the Sergeant at Arms. 

Each year upgrades are made to the infrastructure software. The major upgrade 

this year was the implementation of a new version of the mainframe operating 

system software, ‘‘Z/OS.’’ This upgrade required FMIS testing, both before implementation to identify and resolve any incompatibilities, and after implementation to verify that all functions are working properly. 

During 2005 work continued with Bearing Point to define the requirements for 

additional functionality required for the two Web FMIS releases planned for 2006: 

—Web FMIS r11 B.—Planned for Summer 2006, this release will add the ability 

to ‘‘import’’ invoice data from an outside vendor in order to create a voucher 

with minimal re-typing. (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). 

—Web FMIS r12 B.—Planned for late Fall 2006, this release will be a pilot of 

paperless voucher processing, which requires adding electronic signature and 

documentation imaging functionality. 

In addition, during fiscal year 2006 the following FMIS activities are anticipated: 

—Developing requirements for integrating the Funds Advance Tracking System 

(FATS) into FMIS. FATS, a stand-alone PC-based system, tracks election cycle 

information used in the voucher review process, and tracks travel advances and 

petty cash advances against dollar maximum and total allocation rules. 

—Implementing DB2 vs. 8 in compatibility mode. 

—Researching the implementation of online distribution of system reports. 

—Completing fiscal year 2004 Financial Statements in Hyperion and start working on fiscal year 2005. 

—Performing some minor enhancements to the FAMIS vendor file. 

A more detailed report on FMIS is included in the department report of the Disbursing Office which follows. 

Legislative Information System (LIS) 

The LISAP project team continues to enhance the Senate’s legislative editing 

XML application (LEXA). The Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel (SLC) used 

LEXA throughout 2005 and 80 percent of introduced and reported measures for the 

first session of the 109th Congress were created as XML documents. As modifications and features were developed for LEXA, the SLC’s use continues to increase. 

Thus far in the second session of the 109th Congress, approximately 96 percent of 
81 

the introduced and reported bills have been created as XML documents. Additional 

document types, such as conference reports and engrossed and enrolled bills, were 

added to LEXA. 

The LISAP project team continues to work with the Senate offices, the Clerk of 

the House, the Government Printing Office and the Library of Congress to develop 

standards and tools to create, print and exchange legislative documents in XML. 

The Government Printing Office (GPO) uses LEXA to update and print Senate XML 

documents as requested. GPO also provides support for LEXA, as directed in the 

2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, by maintaining the printing software 

in LEXA that converts an XML document to locators for printing through Microcomp. GPO is also in the process of reworking the software that creates and prints 

tables. These tools will be incorporated into both the Senate and House XML authoring applications. 

A joint project to convert the compilations of current law to an XML format was 

completed last year. Joint projects for this year include completion of the new table 

tool and development of standards for drafting appropriations amendments in XML. 

The Document Management System (DMS) for the SLC will be implemented once 

the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to LEXA. The SLC’s DMS will 

be integrated with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking, management and delivery tool. 

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 and hopefully quickly resolve issues that might impact the status of the 

project or the operation of Congress in general. 

In addition, I also facilitate weekly meetings with the Architect’s office for the 

senior staff of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Capitol Police, Rules Committee and 

Appropriations Committee in order to address the expansion space plans for the 

Senate and any issues with regard to the Capitol Visitor Center’s (CVC’s) construction that may directly impact Senate operations. 

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. 

CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING

The Office of the Secretary maintains a Continuity of Operations (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, 

COOP plans were successfully implemented during the anthrax and ricin incidents, 

and more than twenty drills and exercises to test and refine our plans have been 

conducted. In conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms, Capitol Police, the Office of 

the Attending Physician and the Architect of the Capitol, Emergency Operations 

Centers, Briefing Centers and Alternate Senate Chambers, have been exercised both 

on and off campus. 

In addition, equipment, supplies and other items critical to the conduct of essential functions have been identified and assembled as ‘‘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 our offices, and back-up 

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 within 12 to 24 hours, even if there is no opportunity 

to retrieve anything from our 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 

1 hour; 
82 

—activate an Emergency Operations Center at Postal Square or another nearcampus site within 1 hour; and 

—activate an Emergency Operations Center at another site within the National 

Capital region within 3 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 an Alternate Senate Chamber, Briefing Center and 

Emergency Operations Center; 

—Working with the Capitol Police and the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, refined 

response plans for air threat incidents; 

—Updated fly-away kits for use at an Alternate Chamber; and 

—Conducted and participated in ten 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 they are a permanent, integral part of the Secretary’s ongoing operation. 

MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING CURRENT AND HISTORIC LEGISLATIVE, FINANCIAL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

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 as well 

as 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 Legislative Clerk. 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 20 years. The experience 

of this senior professional staff is a great asset for the Senate. In order to ensure 

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, co-sponsors, 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. 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 2,000 additional legislative items and 150 additional roll call votes than the previous session. For comparative purposes, below is a summary of the 108th Congress, broken down into 1st 

and 2nd sessions, as compared to the first session of the 109th Congress: 

108th Congress, 1st Session 109th Congress, 1st Session 108th Congress, 2nd Session 109th Congress, 1st Session 

Senate Bills .......................................................................... 2,003 2,169 1,032 2,169 

Senate Joint Resolutions ...................................................... 26 27 16 27 

Senate Concurrent Resolutions ............................................ 86 75 66 75 

Senate Resolutions ............................................................... 283 347 204 347 

Amendments Submitted ....................................................... 2,231 2,695 1,857 2,695 
83 

108th Congress, 1st Session 109th Congress, 1st Session 108th Congress, 2nd Session 109th Congress, 1st Session 

House Bills ............................................................................ 282 286 322 286 

House Joint Resolutions ........................................................ 20 11 12 11 

House Concurrent Resolutions .............................................. 78 88 87 88 

Measures Reported ............................................................... 352 286 317 286 

Written Reports ..................................................................... 220 212 208 212 

Total Legislation ...................................................... 5,571 6,196 4,121 6,196 

Roll Call Votes ...................................................................... 459 366 216 366 

Assistance from the Government Printing Office (GPO) 

The Bill Clerk’s office maintains a good working relationship with the Government Printing Office with the common goal of providing the best service possible 

to meet the needs of the Senate. Toward this end, 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. For example, the Secretary requested, through the Bill Clerk, 

that GPO expedite the printing of roughly 60 measures for consideration by the Senate. 

Projects 

Amendment Tracking System (ATS).—In the fall of 2001, the Rules Committee 

staff approached the Secretary’s office with the task of scanning submitted amendments onto the Amendment Tracking System on LIS. The Rules Committee identified a need for Senate staff to have all amendments submitted in the Senate made 

available to them online shortly after being submitted, especially during cloture. 

Rules Committee also requested that the Secretary assess the feasibility of lifting 

the page limitation for scanning amendments onto the ATS Indexer. 

In September 2005, the Secretary of the Senate, through the Bill Clerk’s office, 

began scanning submitted amendments to the ATS Indexer. The Technology Development division of the Sergeant at Arms office has been quick and responsive, making the ATS Indexer a dynamic, usable tool available to the Senate community. The 

Bill Clerks were able to implement this new requirement seamlessly. With the 

added function of the ATS Indexer, the Secretary has made available to the Senate 

community all amendments, submitted and proposed, and in doing so, lifted the 

page limit from 25 to 50. Initial response from users is both positive and constructive. 

Electronic Ledger System.—Shortly after the September 2001 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks in the Capitol complex, the Bill Clerk identified the need 

to have available an electronic version of the official Senate ledgers in order to ensure the integrity of the information recorded in the books. It is anticipated that 

the electronic version will be available for use during possible emergency scenarios, 

either via remote access or portable device. The Technology Development division 

of the Sergeant-at-Arms is working to develop two separate functions of this ledger 

system. One is an electronic data entry system, which will mimic the layout of the 

current Senate ledgers printed by the Government Printing Office. The other, a 

search function, has already been developed and is currently in use in select clerical 

offices of the legislative staff and is routinely enhanced and modified by the excellent ELS project team at Postal Square. Both of these programs will be housed on 

a separate server to maintain the integrity of the ledger data. This search system 

offers an invaluable tool capable of utilizing more complex search requirements. 

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. 

General Overview 

Accuracy continues to be the top priority of this 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 captioning accuracy average above 99 percent this past 

year. 
84 

A major event of 2005 for the Office of Captioning Services was realtime captioning the 55th Annual Presidential Inauguration. The Office’s captions of the historic event appeared on six jumbotrons located on the West Front of the Capitol and 

the National Mall. 

Continuity of operations planning and preparation during 2005 continued to be 

a priority to ensure staff is prepared and confident about the Office’s ability to relocate and successfully caption from a remote location in the event of an emergency. 

Participation in a Continuity of Operations template review project with the Sergeant at Arms Continuity of Operations Program Manager provided an excellent opportunity for an in-depth review of the Office of Captioning Service’s Plan. 

Technology Update 

The Office received a major upgrade of software and hardware in 2004 and thus 

continues to work with vendors to provide enhancements and correct deficiencies in 

the new realtime captioning software. 

2006 Objectives 

The Office of Captioning Services constantly strives to maintain and improve the 

high level of caption accuracy that has been established. The Office is committed 

to this goal and will strive to find new and innovative ways to accomplish this objective. 

Another priority of the Office of Captioning Services will be to prepare and plan 

for the procurement and installation of equipment and relocation of the Office of 

Captioning Services to the Senate expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center. 

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 actually appears in the Extensions of Remarks section of the Congressional Record. 

—To enter into the Senate’s Legislative Information System all official actions 

taken by Senate committees on legislation, nominations, and treaties. 

—To publish in the Daily Digest a listing of all legislation which have 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 Resume of Congressional Activity which follows). 

—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 a total of 874 meetings during the first session of the 

109th Congress, as contrasted with 838 meetings during the first 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 and are published in the 

Congressional Record and entered in the Legislative Information System. Meeting 

outcomes are also published by the Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each 

day. 

Chamber Activity 

The Senate was in session a total of 159 days, for a total of 1,222 hours and 26 

minutes. There were 3 live quorum calls and 366 record votes. (See Chart depicting 

a 20-Year Comparison of Senate Legislative Activity which follows). 
85 

20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY 

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

Senate Convened .............................................. 1/21 1/6 1/25 1/3 1/23 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/25 1/4 Senate Adjourned .............................................. 10/18 12/22 10/21 11/21 10/28 1/3/92 10/9 11/26 12/01 1/3/96 Days in Session ................................................ 143 170 137 136 138 158 129 153 138 211 Hours in Session ............................................... 1,278′15′′ 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′′ Average Hours per Day ..................................... 8.9 7.1 8.2 7.4 9.1 7.6 8.5 8.3 9.0 8.7 Total Measures Passed ..................................... 747 616 814 605 716 626 651 473 465 346 Roll Call Votes .................................................. 359 420 379 312 326 280 270 395 329 613 Quorum Calls .................................................... 16 36 26 11 3 3 5 2 6 3 Public Laws ...................................................... 424 240 473 240 244 243 347 210 255 88 Treaties Ratified ............................................... 12 3 15 9 15 15 32 20 8 10 Nominations Confirmed .................................... 39,893 46,404 42,317 45,585 42,493 45,369 30,619 38,676 37,446 40,535 Average Voting Attendance .............................. 95.72 94.03 91.58 98.0 97.47 97.16 95.4 97.6 97.02 98.07 Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon ................. 117 131 120 95 116 126 112 128 120 184 Sessions Convened at 12 Noon ........................ 25 12 12 14 4 9 ...................... 6 9 2 Sessions Convened after 12 Noon ................... 1 25 5 27 17 23 10 15 17 12 Sessions Continued after 6 p.m ...................... 92 97 37 88 100 102 91 100 100 158 Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight ............ 15 6 7 9 13 6 4 9 7 3 Saturday Sessions ............................................ 2 3 ...................... 1 3 2 2 2 3 5 Sunday Sessions ............................................... ...................... 1 ...................... ...................... 2 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 3 

20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY—Continued 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Senate Convened .............................................. 1/3 1/3 1/27 1/6 1/24 1/3 1/23 1/7 1/20 1/4 Senate Adjourned .............................................. 10/4 11/13 10/21 11/19 12/15 12/20 11/20 12/9 12/8 12/22 Days in Session ................................................ 132 153 143 162 141 173 149 167 133 159 Hours in Session ............................................... 1,036′45′′ 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′′ Average Hours per Day ..................................... 7.8 7.1 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 8.7 7.7 7.7 Total Measures Passed ..................................... 476 386 506 549 696 425 523 590 663 624 Roll Call Votes .................................................. 306 298 314 374 298 380 253 459 216 366 Quorum Calls .................................................... 2 6 4 7 6 3 2 3 1 3 Public Laws ...................................................... 245 153 241 170 410 136 241 198 300 170 Treaties Ratified ............................................... 28 15 53 13 39 3 17 11 15 6 Nominations Confirmed .................................... 33,176 25,576 20,302 22,468 22,512 25,091 23,633 21,580 24,420 25,942 Average Voting Attendance .............................. 98.22 98.68 97.47 98.02 96.99 98.29 96.36 96.07 95.54 97.41 
86 

20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY—Continued—Continued 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon ................. 113 115 109 118 107 140 119 133 104 121 Sessions Convened at 12 Noon ........................ 15 12 31 17 25 10 12 4 9 1 Sessions Convened after 12 Noon ................... 7 7 2 19 24 21 23 23 21 36 Sessions Continued after 6 p.m ...................... 88 96 93 113 94 108 103 134 129 120 Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight ............ 1 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 2 3 8 2 3 Saturday Sessions ............................................ 1 1 1 3 1 3 ...................... 1 2 2 Sunday Sessions ............................................... ...................... 1 ...................... ...................... 1 ...................... ...................... 1 1 2 

Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest—Office of the Secretary. 
87 

Computer Activities 

The Daily Digest continues to send the complete publication at the end of each 

day to the Government Printing Office electronically. The Editor, Assistant Editor, 

and Committee Scheduling Coordinator function solely within the framework of 

adaptability to prepare Digest copy on computers, storing and sharing information, 

permitting prompt editing, and the final transfer to floppy disc. The Digest continues the practice of sending a disc along with a duplicate hard copy to GPO, even 

though GPO receives the Digest copy by electronic transfer long before hand delivery is completed adding to the timeliness of publishing the Congressional Record. 

The Digest 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 continues to work closely with Senate computer staff to refine 

the LIS/DMS system, including further refinements to the Senate committee scheduling application which will improve the data entry process. The committee scheduling application was developed in 1999 as a server-based web-enabled application 

that is browser accessible to all Senate offices. It was designed to replace the committee scheduling functions and reports that were supported by the mainframebased Senate Legis System. 

Government Printing Office (GPO) 

The Daily Digest continues to discuss with the Government Printing Office problems encountered with the printing of the Digest, and are pleased to report that 

with the onset of electronic transfer of the Digest copy, occurrences of editing corrections, especially the insertion of page reference numbers, or transcript errors are infrequent. Discussions with GPO continue regarding the inclusion of on-line corrections. 

Office Summation 

The Daily Digest continues to consult on a daily basis with the Senate Parliamentarians, Legislative, Executive, Journal, and Bill Clerks, the Official Reporters of 

Debates, as well as the staffs of the Policy Committees and other committee staffs, 

and is grateful for the continued support from these offices. 

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 2005, 50 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and 11 concurrent 

resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared, printed, proofread, corrected, 

and printed on parchment. 

A total of 624 additional pieces of legislation in one form or another, were passed 

or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing from this office. 

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 prepares daily the Executive Calendar 

as well as all nomination 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 first session of the 109th Congress, there were 1,201 nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting 27,686 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 18 messages withdrawing nominations sent 

to the Senate during the first session of the 109th Congress. Of the total nominations transmitted, 511 were for civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign 

Service, Coast Guard, NOAA, and Public Health Service. In addition, there were 

2,740 nominees in the ‘‘civilian list’’ categories named above. Military nominations 

received this session totaled 24,435 (9,860—Air Force; 8,586—Army; 4,607—Navy 

and 1,382—Marine Corps). The Senate confirmed 25,942 nominations this session. 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule XXXI, 67 nominations 

were returned to the President during the first session of the 109th Congress. 
88 

Treaties 

There were 8 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President during the first 

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. 109–1 

through 109–8). The Senate gave its advice and consent to 6 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 8 executive reports relating to treaties and a nomination ordered 

printed for the use of the Senate during the first session of the 109th Congress (Executive Report 109–1 through 109–8). The Senate conducted 27 roll call votes in executive session, all on or in relation to nominations and treaties. 

During the year, the Sergeant at Arms’ Systems Development Services Branch 

worked with the Executive Clerk to make the Executive Calendar more ‘‘user friendly’’ and also to further ongoing improvements to the Legislative Information System 

pertaining to the processing of nominations, treaties, executive communications, 

presidential messages and petitions and memorials. Additionally, the SAA worked 

closely with the Executive Clerk in the development of the new program for writing 

and publishing the Journal of Executive Proceedings of the Senate each session. The 

new program, now in use for the second session of the 109th Congress, will greatly 

improve the pace at which the Journal can be developed and published each year. 

Executive Communications 

For the first session of the 109th Congress, 5,119 executive communications, 253 

petitions and memorials and 34 Presidential messages were received and processed. 

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 

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. In 2005, the Journal Clerk completed the production of the 867 page 2004 Senate Journal. 

The Journal staff each 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 in the Senate Journal. 

The LIS Senate Journal Authoring System, first utilized by the Journal Clerk to 

successfully compile the 2004 Journal (from start to finish), continues to be updated 

as needed to further assist in the efficiency of production; the 2005 Journal is expected to be sent to the Government Printing Office for printing at the end of 

March. 

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 the 

Legislative Information System (LIS) by the various offices of the Secretary. In an 

effort to monitor and improve the LIS, the Legislative Clerk acts as the liaison between legislative clerks and technical operations staff of the Sergeant at Arms. The 
89 

Legislative Clerk reviews, prioritizes, and forwards change requests from the clerks 

to the technical operations staff. Over the past year, 30 change requests submitted 

by the clerks to improve the system have been implemented. Feedback from the 

Senate community regarding LIS continues to be excellent. 

Additionally, the Legislative Clerk is the Director of Legislative Services, providing a single line of communication to the Assistant Secretary and Secretary with 

responsibility for overall coordination, supervision, scheduling, and cross-training. 

Summary of Activity 

The first session of the 109th Congress completed its legislative business and adjourned sine die on December 22, 2005. During 2005, the Senate was in session 159 

days and conducted 366 roll call votes. There were 286 measures reported from committees and 624 total measures passed. In addition, there were 2,695 amendments 

processed. 

Cross-Training 

Recognizing the importance of planning for the continuity of Senate business, 

under both normal and possibly extenuating circumstances, cross-training is strongly emphasized among the Secretary’s legislative staff. To ensure additional staff is 

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 is cross-trained. 

Amendment Tracking System Expansion 

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. 

During this past year, the Secretary, through the Legislative Clerk, Bill Clerk and 

Information Systems, spent many hours working with the technical development 

staff of the Sergeant at Arms to give the ATS a major overhaul. Some of the less 

visible changes, implemented in March, included upgrades to the hardware and underlying software programs. 

In September, the scope of information available on ATS expanded to include submitted amendments, those that have been submitted but have not been proposed 

on the Senate floor. 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. The Senate community welcomed the ATS enhancement enthusiastically and feedback has been very positive. 

8. OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES

The official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the proceedings of the Senate, and 

serve as liaison for all Senate personnel on matters relating to the content of the 

Record. The transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation is transmitted in hard copy and electronically throughout the day to the Government Printing Office (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. 

To enhance efficiency, the office provides guidelines on format for the Congressional Record. These provide a helpful tool to assure 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 Parlia-
90 

mentarian 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. The Parliamentarians reviewed more than 1,000 

amendments during 2005 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 2005, the 

Parliamentarian and his assistants referred 2,610 measures and 5,406 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 Department of Homeland Security, by the adoption of S. Res. 445, 

which reorganizes 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. 

During 2005, as has been the case in the past, the staff of the Parliamentarian’s 

Office was frequently called on to analyze and advise Senators on a great number 

of issues arising under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. An additional layer 

of procedural and budgetary complexity was added this year, as this office was 

called upon to advise on unique issues arising from the need to consider two different reconciliation bills and several general appropriations bills in the wake of the 

emergency brought about by Hurricane Katrina. The Senate considered two separate budget reconciliation bills in 2005, including the first spending reduction reconciliation bill in almost a decade. Such bills present the Parliamentarian’s Office 

with hundreds of judgment calls in the analysis of complex and disparate legislation. 

Additionally, in the last five years, rules relating to legislation on appropriations 

bills, and the scope of conference reports on all bills were reinstated. This has 

opened up hundreds of Senate amendments to renewed scrutiny by the Parliamentarians, and has meant that the Parliamentarians now have the responsibility of potentially reviewing every provision of every conference report considered by both the 

House and the Senate. 

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, and to Members and employees of the 

United States Senate. To accomplish this mission, the Senate Disbursing Office 

manages the collection of information from the distributed accounting locations in 

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 to provide responsive, personal attention to Members and employees on a 

non-biased and confidential basis. The Senate Disbursing Office also manages the 

distribution of central financial and human resource information to the individual 

Member Offices, Committees, and Administrative and Leadership offices in the Sen-
91 

ate while maintaining the appropriate control of information for the protection of 

individual Members and Senate employees. 

To support the mission of the Senate Disbursing Office, the organization is structured in a manner that is intended 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 on Federal retirement and benefits, payroll, and front office processes. Coordination of the interaction between the Financial Services, 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, implements regulatory and legislated changes, and designs and produces forms for use in all three sections. 

After year end processing of payroll for the calendar year 2004, a few minor alterations to the new version of the payroll system were made, and enhancements to 

the COLA process were smoothly completed. W–2s were issued promptly and were 

immediately available on the Imaging system. 

Starting in February, enhancements to the Document Imaging System began and 

updates to the system, including the ability to e-mail images to other agencies and 

to rearrange documents within folders, were added. Back up and storage processes 

for document images continue to be refined. Existing Disaster Recovery efforts continue to be improved to provide easy access to this important data. All microfilm 

records from the Benefits/Payroll side of the Office were imaged and by the end of 

the year, there was no longer a need to use microfilm. 

During April, the qualified lender certification process, part of the Student Loan 

Repayment Program, was modified. The main drawback encountered was to authorize a Disbursing representative to talk with the staff member’s loan servicer, and 

the verification of the loan particulars by a follow up call to the lender. The new 

process requires the staff member to get a standard form completed by their lender 

and submit it with their paperwork. This removed a tremendous number of phone 

calls to and from lenders, the Office, and staff members and has greatly expedited 

the process. It also allowed the process to be handled on a rotating basis by a payroll specialist. 

During the year many reports used by the Employee Benefits Section were examined and updated to reflect new reporting requirements and to enhance system support. One new form was produced for the Termination Log, which tracks all employees who left the Senate during the previous payroll period. Now, all required forms 

for terminating employees are produced by our payroll system. 

The Senate warehouse project is nearing completion as the process of 

transitioning materials is in its final phase. For many years, Disbursing files were 

stored in two Senate off-site locations, due to space limitations. All Disbursing files 

in both off-site warehouses were examined, organized, placed on pallets, and numbered in preparation for the move to the new warehouse. The numbers of pallets 

requiring storage room were confirmed, and over 70 file cabinets holding historical 

personnel and office records were prepared for the move in early December 2005. 

An enclosed, secure and environmentally controlled area was provided for personnel 

files and 6 new revolving vertical storage file cabinets were prepared for the site. 

The cabinets will hold all current files and provide ample space for growth. Additional space for 100 pallets was also provided in the new warehouse which should 

fulfill Disbursing’s storage needs for many years. 

FRONT COUNTER—ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Front Counter is the main service area of all general Senate business and 

financial activity. The Front Counter maintains the Senate’s internal accountability 

of funds used in daily operations. Reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily 

basis. The Front Counter 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 
92 

rules, regulations, and statutes. The Front Counter 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 and provided verbal and 

written detailed information regarding their pay and benefits. Authorization is certified to new and state employees for issuance of their Senate I.D. card. Advances 

are issued to Senate staff authorized for an advance 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 Counter 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 

The Front Counter processed approximately 2,200 cash advances, totaling approximately $1.1 million and initialized 710 check/direct deposit advances, totaling 

approximately $709,000. 

Received and processed more than 28,000 checks, totaling over $3,000,000. 

Administered Oath and Personnel Affidavits to more than 3,000 new Senate staff 

and advised them of their benefits. 

Maintained brochures for 10 Federal health carriers and distributed approximately 3,500 brochures to new and existing staff during the annual FEHB Open 

Season. 

Provided 25 training sessions to new Administrative Managers. 

The Front Office operations continued the daily reconciliation of operations and 

strengthened internal office controls. Training and guidance to new Administrative 

Managers and business contacts continued, as well as 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 contributions 

and making them aware of the Thrift Savings Plan catch up program when applicable. Front Office operations continued to provide the Senate community with 

prompt, courteous, and informative advice regarding Disbursing operations. 

PAYROLL SECTION

The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System 

(HRMS) and is responsible for the processing, verifying, and warehousing all payroll 

information submitted to the Disbursing Office by Senators for their personal staff, 

by Chairmen for their committee staff, and by other elected officials for their staff; 

issuing salary payments to the above employees; rectifying returns of student loan 

allowance payments, jointly maintaining the Automated Clearing House (ACH) 

FEDLINE facilities with the Accounts Payable Section for the normal transmittal 

of payroll deposits to the Federal Reserve; distributing the appropriate payroll expenditure and allowance reports to the individual offices; issuing the proper withholding and agency contributions reports to the Accounting Department; and transmitting the proper Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to the National Finance 

Center (NFC), while maintaining earnings records for distribution to the Social Security Administration, and maintaining 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. 

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 

open season 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 years 

of age, the TSP catch-up programs provided them with an opportunity to make additional contributions in excess of the standard program. 

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave members of the Payroll Section the opportunity to work directly with TSP employees as their COOP facility was located 

in the Virginia suburbs. Several visits were made to the site to ensure the deductions for employees of the Senate were properly applied, and to receive training on 

their Web based processing system. 
93 

The Student Loan Program, Flexible Spending Accounts, and Long Term Care account processing continues. The office continues to refine and improve processes in 

working with third party contractors. In addition, the elections of 2004 presented 

the section with the task of opening and closing nine offices plus the monitoring of 

S. Res. 9 payrolls during the first 6 months of 2005. 

The Payroll Section again participated in the December disaster recovery testing. 

This year’s test 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. During the holidays, 

members of the Payroll Section conducted another test of the payroll personnel system by processing over 400 salary changes through dial up from a laptop computer. 

The payroll personnel system test proved that it could be run from many 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. 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 once Official 

Personnel Folders and Transcripts of Service are received, verifies the accuracy of 

the information provided and reconciles as necessary. 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 processes employment verifications for loans, the Bar Exam, the FBI, OPM, 

and 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 the Flexible Spending Accounts. Designations of Beneficiary for FEGLI, CSRS, 

FERS, and unpaid compensation are filed and checked by EBS. 

General Activities 

The year began with EBS finalizing retirement estimates and processing the 

many retirement cases associated with the outgoing Senators and their staffs, as 

well as committee staff affected by the changes. Approximately 150 retirement cases 

were processed throughout 2005. 

There was a great deal of employee turnover in early 2005. New Members appointed numerous employees from the House and Executive Branch, and many 

other employees left with their outgoing Members, many of whom were appointed 

to positions in the Executive Branch. This caused a dramatic increase in appointments to be researched and processed, retirement records to be closed out, termination packages of benefits information to be compiled and mailed out, and health 

insurance enrollments to be processed. Transcripts of service for employees going to 

other federal agencies, and other tasks associated with employees changing jobs 

were at a high level this year. These required prior employment research and 

verification, new FEHB, FEGLI, FSA, CSRS, FERS and TSP enrollments, and the 

associated requests for backup verification. 

The 2004 OPM FEGLI Open Season (OS) elections took effect September 1, 2005. 

EBS verified and processed all OS elections and provided reminder notifications and 

guidance to those affected. Approximately 350 Senate employee FEGLI changes 

were processed. 

Interagency meetings attended involved time spent on the development and understanding of the new Vision and Dental (V&D) programs that will surface in late 

2006 and the new Voluntary Benefits Portal that is in development under the direction of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to combine third-party administration of FSA, LTCI and the new V&D programs. Information was also shared on the 

implementation of the FEGLI Open Season enrollments. Interaction and cooperation 

were essential in the continuing operations of the New Orleans-based Thrift Savings 

Plan and the National Finance Center in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. EBS did 

as much as possible to provide assistance and information to Senate staff that would 

normally be provided by TSP. 

The annual FEHB Open Season was held and approximately 500 employees 

changed plans. These changes were processed and reported to carriers in record 

time. Once again, the on-line Checkbook Guide to Health Plans was made available 
94 

to Senate employees to research and compare FEHB plans. This tool will remain 

available to staff throughout the year. Additional effort was made to increase employee awareness and understanding of this valuable tool, and feedback is positive. 

The FEHB Open Season Health Fair was also attended by about 600 employees and 

as an additional service, it was open to all other federal employees on the Hill, including House, Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol and Senate Restaurant employees. In addition to having health plan representatives available to provide information and answer questions, representatives from FSA Feds and Long Term Care 

Insurance were also in attendance. 

Much effort was made in coordination with the Senate Computer Center to effect 

computer enhancements and provide additional automated forms to our database. 

This has provided greater efficiency and increased accuracy of information. 

EBS continues to work with our File Room personnel to modify our procedures 

and the flow of forms to maintain imaged documentation with COOP preparedness 

in mind. For COOP readiness with respect to employee personnel folder access, the 

goal for 2006 is to explore alternatives to complete the scanning of all ‘‘prior’’ employee personnel folder documents that are housed in the Disbursing file room. 

Educational seminars were held for the Civil Service Retirement System and the 

Federal Employees Retirement System. These seminars for staff were well attended 

and well received. 

Due to the continued boom in the housing market, employment verifications came 

in at a rapid pace, averaging over 100 per month. Unemployment verifications were 

especially high early in the year and remained constant throughout the year. Telephone inquiries, though not specifically tracked, continued at high levels. 

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. 

DOFM is segmented into three functional departments: Accounting, Accounts Payable, and Budget. The Accounts Payable Department is subdivided into three sections: the Audit group, the Disbursement group and the Vendor/SAVI group. The 

Deputy coordinates the activities of the three functional departments, establishes 

central financial policies and procedures, acts as the primary liaison to Human Resources, and carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk and the Secretary of 

the Senate. 

ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT

During fiscal year 2005, the Accounting Department approved nearly 47,800 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 

canceled 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 (cost of living) budget uploads, stop payment requests, travel advances and repayments, and limited payability reimbursements. 

This year the Accounting Department assisted in the validation of various system 

upgrades and modifications, including the testing required to implement Web Release 10.0, an upgrade to the mainframe operating system to Z/OS, and the testing 

of last non-zero balance date to fix process control. During January 2005, the Accounting Department with assistance from a contractor, Bearing Point, completed 

the 2004 year-end process to close and reset revenue, expense and budgetary general ledger accounts to zero. During June 2005, we successfully tested and implemented in Federal FAMIS another document purge including the archiving of Web 

report data for lapsed years. Further, toward the end of the fiscal year, the financial 

file rollover was performed to update FAMIS’ tables and create the new index codes 

needed to accommodate data for fiscal year 2006. 
95 

The Department of the Treasury’s monthly financial reporting requirements includes 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, on 

a monthly basis, reported to the Department of the Treasury is the Statement of 

Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level 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 

applicable state income taxes withheld. Monthly reconciliations were performed with 

the National Finance Center regarding the employee withholdings and agency 

matching contributions for the Thrift Savings Plan. 

In addition to Treasury’s external reporting deadlines, there are 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. Each month, the Accounting 

Department reviews and verifies the accuracy of the statements before distribution 

is made. 

The Accounting Department, in conjunction with the Deputy for Financial Management, continues to work closely with the Sergeant at Arms Finance Department 

in completing the corrective actions that were identified during our pro-forma financial statements’ audit ability 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. As part of this project, the Accounting Group 

is working with the SAA in reconciling FAMIS entries to Asset Center. The Accounting Group also finalized clearing all CASHLINK outstanding items. 

As part of the financial statement initiative, the accounting group has worked on 

the validation of the Senate’s pro-forma financial statements for fiscal year 2004. 

The validation of the statements of financial position, net costs and changes in net 

position for fiscal year 2004 is complete. Work is still underway on the last two 

statements—budgetary resources and finance—and is expected to be completed by 

the end of March. At that time, work on the fiscal year 2005 statements will begin. 

Toward the end of the calendar year, in coordination with SAA staff, the Chief 

Accountant and the Deputy for Financial Management participated in successful 

testing of our disaster recovery facility. 

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

VENDOR/SAVI SECTION

Created in 2003, the Vendor/SAVI section is responsible for maintaining 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 Office’s webbased payment tracking system known as SAVI. This section also assists the IT Department performing periodic testing and monitoring of the performance of the 

SAVI system. 

Currently, there are more than 13,400 vendor records 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 

to pay vendors electronically via the Automated Clearing House (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 ACH. 

Whenever a new remittance address is added to the vendor file, a standard letter 

is mailed to our vendors requesting tax and banking information. Currently, more 

than 1,250 vendors and over half of the state offices’ landlords are being paid by 

ACH. 
96 

As stated earlier, SAVI is Disbursing’s web-based payment tracking system. Senate staff may electronically create, save, and file expense reimbursement forms, 

track their progress, and receive detailed information on payments made. The most 

common service requests are those for system user ids, system passwords and to activate deactivated accounts; less common but more complicated are employee requests for an alternative expense payment method. An employee can choose to have 

their payroll set up for direct deposit but may have their expenses reimbursed by 

paper check. 

The Vendor/SAVI section works closely with the A/P disbursements group resolving returned EFT issues. EFT payments are returned periodically for a variety of 

reasons. The reasons given have included incorrect account numbers, incorrect ABA 

routing numbers, and, in rare instances, a nonparticipating financial institution. 

Most EFT return issues are easy to resolve; however, there are some instances that 

result with a vendor being converted back to paper check payments. Currently, 

there are no unresolved returned EFT issues. 

The Vendor/SAVI section continues to electronically scan and store supporting 

documentation of vendor file requests. Currently, with assistance from the Disbursement Group, over 5,000 vendors have been electronically scanned 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. 

This year, the Vendor/SAVI section processed over 2,700 vendor file requests, 

completed nearly 2,200 SAVI service requests and mailed over 1,400 vendor information letters. 

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

DISBURSEMENTS DEPARTMENT

Well over 120,000 expense claims were received and processed by the department 

in 2005. More than 32,500 expense checks were written and approximately 56,500 

direct deposit reimbursements were transmitted. The department has experienced 

a small decline of roughly 7 percent in the number of checks written and a slightly 

larger increase of 13 percent in the number of ACH payments, and it is expected 

that this trend will continue. The department suffered no performance loss, ensuring that all vendors and employees continued to receive timely and accurate payments. 

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. Files are maintained for the current period and two prior periods in-house as space is limited. Older documents are stored 

at the warehouse facility. 

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 via ACH as more vendors and 

employees opt for this payment method. 

The Disbursements Department is also responsible for researching returned 

checks as vendors request additional information relating to payment allocation. 

Fortunately, few checks are returned. This is a result of the use of a centralized 

vendor file and accurate certification of payments. There are currently no unresolved returned check issues. 

During 2005, an increasing number of ACH items were returned for reasons ranging from erroneous account information to non-participation by depositing banks. 

Some of the returns were simply notices of change while others were rejected outright. Procedures were established which created a liaison with the Vendor/SAVI 

group, Payroll, and Accounting. Corrections are forwarded to the Vendor/SAVI group 

so the corrections may be made in the vendor file. Corrections involving payroll are 

forwarded to that department. Such corrections are downloaded into the vendor file 

for nightly processing. 

All rejected items are logged into an ACH Reports folder in Excel. 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. Corrective actions include correction of erroneous data and 
97 

retransmission, or sometimes re-issuance by paper check. Once the corrective action 

is determined, an accounting memo is drafted and given to Disbursements and the 

appropriate action is taken. The Excel spreadsheet contains details of the return as 

well as information relating to the corrective action taken. Accounting then uses the 

information contained in the spreadsheet to assist them in reconciling CASHLINK 

with the Treasury. 

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. This information is transferred to mailing labels, placed on manila envelopes, 

and given to Accounting. Offices expressing no preference have their statements 

sent to their respective offices marked ‘‘Personal and Confidential.’’ 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’s 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 on-line 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. This process has 

been well received by Senate offices and vendors. This saves time and significantly 

reduces reliance on the postal system. Accounts Payable Disbursements staff have 

Treasury secure ID cards and are trained in the use of PACER. Given the time and 

money savings, as well as the overwhelmingly positive reception, large growth in 

the use of PACER for check retrieval purposes is anticipated. 

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 previously ordered folder/inserter was purchased and 

has been installed. In addition to the new folder/inserter, the replacement was comprehensive in scope. New hardware was introduced and further check writer upgrades are scheduled for 2006. The result is a user friendly system which has the 

additional benefits of greater security and higher degree of accuracy. Only certain 

key personnel have access to the signature fonts which are specific to each individual, and print quality has been significantly improved. 

Work continues on the reconciliation of the replacement check account. A team 

was formed consisting of the Deputy for Financial Management, Accounts Payable 

Manager, Chief Accountant, Accounts Payable Disbursements Supervisor and Staff 

Accountants. Persistent and determined revenue collection procedures have resulted 

in the elimination of all but one unresolved item. 

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

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 discretionary use of funds to the various accounting locations, identifies duplicate payments submitted by offices, monitors payments related to contracts, trains Administrative Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial practices, trains Administrative Managers in the use of 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 to monitor the Fund Advance Tracking System 

(FATS) to ensure that advances are charged correctly, vouchers repaying such advances are entered, and balances are adjusted for reuse of the advance funds. An 

‘‘aging’’ process is also performed to ensure that travel advances are repaid in the 

time specified by the advance travel regulations. Travel advances may be repaid via 

regular voucher processing, or may be canceled if the corresponding travel is not 

taken. 

The Accounts Payable Audit Section, currently a group of 13, has the responsibility for the daily processing of expense claims submitted by the 140 accounting locations of the Senate. The section processed in excess of 145,000 expense vouchers 

in fiscal year 2005, as well as 23,000 uploaded items. The voucher processing ranged 

in scope from providing interpretation of Senate rules, regulations and statute, ap-
98 

plying 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 by Rules and 

paid by Disbursing within 10 business days of receipt. 

Uploaded items are of two varieties, certified expenses and vendor payments. Certified expenses include items such as stationery, telecommunications, postage, and 

equipment. Charges incurred by the various Senate offices are certified to Disbursing on a monthly basis. As an example, the Keeper of Stationery tracks all expenditures for each office, and sends a voucher certifying the expenses incurred over 

the previous month. The expenses are detailed on a spreadsheet which is also electronically uploaded. The physical voucher is audited and appropriate revisions are 

made. The revisions are transferred into the uploaded spreadsheet which is then 

used to effect payment to the Keeper. 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. 

During fiscal year 2004, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration increased the delegated sanctioning authority for vouchers from $35 or less 

to $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. Disbursing passed two post-payment audits performed by the Rules Committee. 

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 expense, and participated with seminars sponsored by the Secretary of the Senate, the 

Sergeant at Arms, and the Library of Congress. The Section trained 14 new Administrative Managers and Chief Clerks and conducted 5 informational sessions for 

Senate staff through seminars sponsored by the Congressional Research Service. 

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 9 was in use for most of the year 

with the electronic, importable expense summary report (ESR). The electronic ESR 

has gained widespread acceptance and Web FMIS version 10 was installed in September. Extensive testing is anticipated for the release of Web FMIS version 10.3 

in fiscal year 2006. 

A cancellation process was established for advances in 2004. This was necessary 

to ensure repayment of advances systematically for canceled or postponed travel in 

accordance with Senate travel regulations. Advance procedures including cancellation were formally incorporated into the Policies and Procedures Manual. Although 

procedures are in place, enhancement is necessary and is expected in a later release 

of Web FMIS. Cancellation of other Web vouchers is also scheduled for testing during a later system release. The A/P sections within the Polices and Procedures Manual continue to be updated and revised as new policies, regulations, and system 

functionality enhancements dictate. 

BUDGET DEPARTMENT

The third component of the Disbursing Office Financial Management Group is the 

Budget Department. The primary responsibility of the Budget Department is to 

compile the annual operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation 

to the Committee on Appropriations. The Budget Department is responsible for the 

preparation, issuance and distribution of the budget justification worksheets (BJW). 

In fiscal year 2005, the budget justification worksheets were processed in December. 

The budget baseline estimates for fiscal year 2006 were reported to the Office of 

Management and Budget in January. 

This department is also responsible for the formulation, presentation and execution of the budget for the Senate and provides a wide range of analytical, technical 

and advisory functions related to the budget process. The Budget Department acts 

as the Budget Officer for the Office of the Secretary, assisting in the preparation 

of testimony for the hearings before the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Rules and Administration. 
99 

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. 

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 Management Information System (FMIS) which is used by approximately 140 Senate accounting locations 

(i.e., 100 Senator’s offices, 20 Committees, 20 Leadership and Support offices, the 

Rules Committee 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. 

Work during 2005 was supported by the Sergeant at Arms Technology Services 

staff, the Secretary’s Information Technology staff, and contracts with Bearing 

Point. 

The SAA Technology Services staff provides the technical infrastructure, including 

hardware (mainframe and servers), operating system software (mainframe and servers), database software, and telecommunications; technical assistance for these components, including migration management, and database administration; and regular batch processing. Bearing Point is responsible, under the contract with the 

SAA, 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 six releases of Web FMIS. Combined, these releases took 

FMIS to the ‘‘zero-client’’ platform, an important milestone in providing this 

critical system in a disaster situation. By the end of April 2005 all Web FMIS 

users were using the intranet version of Web FMIS; 

—Implementation of a release of SAVI that enables Macintosh computer users to 

use this system; 

—Support of the Rules Committee’s post payment audit for the Rules Committee 

Audit to conduct a statistically valid sample of vouchers of $100 and under for 

which sanctioning was delegated to the Financial Clerk; 

—Upgrading our e-mail to ‘‘Active Directory’’; 

—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. 
100 

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 purchased 

from Bearing Point.

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 purchased 

from Bearing Point.

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 by Bearing Point.

Disbursing Office ...................... October 1998 

Web FMIS (Intranet) ................................................................... Preparation of vouchers, travel advances,

vouchers 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 under Senate contract by Bearing Point. All Senators’ offices .................. All Committee offices 

All Leadership and 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 

Developed by SAA Technology Services. Disbursing Office ...................... Spring 1983 

Post Payment Voucher Audit (PC-based) ................................... Selects a random sample of vouchers for 

which sanctioning was delegated to the Financial Clerk for the Rules Committee to use in conducting a post payment audit.

Excel spreadsheet developed by Bearing Point. Rules Committee ....................... 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 from 

Bearing Point.

Senate employees ..................... Pilot—Spring 2002 

Senate-wide July 

2002 
101 

Online ESR (Intranet) ................................................................. A component of SAVI through which Senate 

employees can create on-line Travel/NonTravel Expense Summary Reports and submit them electronically to the Administrative Manager/Chief Clerk for processing.

Custom software developed under contract by Bearing Point. 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 under contract by Bearing Point. 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 on-line process by accounting locations.

Custom software developed under contract by Bearing Point. Senate Accounting Locations .... October 1999—Cli- ent Server 

April 2005— 

Intranet 
102 

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 Rules Committee 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’’; and meet with Chiefs of Staff, Administrative 

Managers, Chief Clerks, and 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 parallel 

load and database access optimization; 

—Security—maintains user rights for all ADPICS, FAMIS, SAVI, and Web FMIS 

users; 

—System administration—design, test and make entries to tables that are intrinsic to the system; 

—Support of Accounting Activities—provide assistance in 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 Rules Committee post payment voucher audit process; and 

—Training—provide functional training to all Senate FMIS users. 

Of these, the post payment voucher audit deserves recognition. In December of 

2002, the Rules Committee delegated to the Financial Clerk the authority for sanctioning vouchers of $35 and less; effective January 1, 2004 this threshold increased 

to $100. The authorization directed Rules and Disbursing to establish a set of procedures for a semi-annual audit of these vouchers. The two offices agreed that Rules 

would conduct a random sampling inspection of these vouchers based on industry 

statistical standards. Under the supervision of the IT Group, Bearing Point 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 2005 resulted in a favorable finding of zero discrepancies. The audit conducted in April 2005 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2005, covered 

24,643 vouchers and the audit conducted in October 2005 for the six-month period 

ending September 30, 2005, covered 29,013 vouchers, an overall increase of 21 percent in the number of vouchers of $100 and less that were processed during fiscal 

year 2005. 

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 mainframe 

operating system was upgraded to the Z/OS operating system. This required that 

the Disbursing Office test all FMIS subsystems in a testing environment and verify 

all FMIS subsystems in the production environment after Z/OS was implemented. 

Managing and Testing New System Development 

During 2005, we supervised development, performed extensive integration system 

testing and implemented changes to the following FMIS subsystems: Web FMIS; 

Senate Vendor Information (SAVI) and Online ESR; and Checkwriter. 

Web FMIS 

Over the last two years, updates and simplification of the underlying technology 

of Web FMIS has occurred, basically replacing all Visual Basic Client/Server and 

Cold Fusion Web technology with WebSphere web pages thereby creating a ‘‘thin 

client’’ application that can be accessed via an intranet browser. In August 2004, 

Web FMIS r9.0 for pilot offices was implemented, which is a complete rewriting of 

the Web FMIS functionality using all intranet based pages. By the end of April, all 

Web FMIS users were using the intranet version of Web FMIS. During 2005, Web 

FMIS was improved and augmented in the following releases: 

—Web FMIS r9.1.—Implemented in November 2004, addressed additional 

functionality identified by the pilot offices. This was provided to new offices of 

the 109th Congress. 

—Web FMIS 10.0.—Implemented in February 2005, added a security certificate 

to the Web FMIS web site (i.e., adding the ‘‘S’’ to https://webfmis.senate.gov) 

and changed the extracts for the nightly Web FMIS reporting cycle to use tabledriven parameters rather than hard-coded ones. 
103 

—Web FMIS 10.1.—Implemented in April 2005, provided report and document 

printing via Adobe, standard Senate software, rather than Web FMIS-specific 

files. This completed moving Web FMIS to the ‘‘zero-client’’ platform, an important milestone in providing critical systems in a disaster situation. With this 

release the Rules Committee Audit staff moved from client-server based screen 

to intranet-based pages for their functions, and Disbursing staff began using 

‘‘standard notepad text’’ to document corrections made to vouchers. Additionally, 

this release addressed performance issues resulting from r10.0. 

—Web FMIS r10.2.—Implemented in July 2005 focused on additional functionality 

for the Office, including new pages for the Disbursing Inbox and Document Review functions, and enhancements to the Advice of Change process and streamlined the document approval process. 

—Web FMIS r10.2.1.—Implemented in October 2005, fixed bugs in the Disbursing 

functions. 

—Web FMIS r10.3—Implemented in January 2006 (but included here because 

most of the work on the release was done in 2005), 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. 

During 2005, work continued with Bearing Point to define the requirements for 

additional functionality required for the two Web FMIS releases planned for 2006: 

—Web FMIS r11.—Planned for Spring 2006, will add the ability to ‘‘import’’ invoice data from an outside vendor in order to create a voucher with minimal 

re-typing. (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. 

—Web FMIS r12.—Planned for late Fall 2006, will be a pilot of paperless voucher 

processing, which requires adding electronic signature and documentation imaging functionality. 

Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) and Online ESR 

SAVI enables Senate staff to check the status of reimbursements, whether via 

check or direct deposit referencing an on-line 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 2005. Release 3.2, implemented in May 2005, enabled use of SAVI by Macintosh computer users. 

Checkwriter 

The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via check using the 

Checkwriter software. No changes were implemented to the Checkwriter software 

in 2005, but Checkwriter release 6, which rewrites the security component, will be 

tested in early 2006, with implementation tentatively scheduled for summer 2006. 

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 2005, two types of meetings were held among Disbursing, SAA and Bearing 

Point staff 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 DO staff (IT and functional), 

SAA Technical Services staff, and Bearing Point to discuss 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 for $5 million in multi-year funds for further work on the FMIS 

project. The five strategic initiatives are: 
104 

—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—Requests from Accounting Locations.—Respond to requests from the 

Senate’s Accounting Locations for additional functionality in Web FMIS; —Payroll System—Requests from Accounting Locations.—Respond to requests 

from the Senate’s Accounting Locations for on-line 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 2005 one new task order, the 

fiscal year 2006 Extended Operational Support was executed. In addition, work continued under two task orders executed in prior years: Web FMIS r10; SAA Finance 

System and Reporting Enhancements; and Web FMIS Imaging and Digital Signature Design and Electronic Invoicing and Remittance Enhancements. 

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 

Existing workstations were maintained with appropriate upgrades, including: an 

e-mail upgrade to ‘‘Active Directory’’; the addition of ‘‘SNAP’’ servers to backup, 

nightly, our office data in Disbursing and directly to the Office’s space at the ACF; 

work with the SAA staff to upgrade our network speed to 100 mps; and the maintenance of the Office Information Authorization form log which provides easy access 

from Disbursing staff desktops to up-to-date information about the authorized contacts for each Senate office. 

Projects for Payroll and Employee Benefits Sections 

The Payroll/Benefits imaging system, developed by SAA staff, and which captures 

and indexes payroll documents electronically, continues to be supported. This is a 

critical system for Payroll and Employee Benefits sections. 

Coordinating the Disbursing Office’s Disaster Recovery Activities 

On Saturday, December 3, 2005, the Sergeant at Arms technical staff conducted 

a disaster recovery test of the Senate’s computing facilities, including the Financial 

Management Information System (FMIS) functions. The test involved switching the 

Senate’s network from accessing systems at the Primary Computing Facility (PCF) 

to our backup facility, and powering down the PCF. 

The SAA’s primary purpose was to test the technical process of switching to our 

backup facility, and only a limited amount of time was available for functional testing. The SAA staff wanted to complete the exercise within a 12-hour window, including the time needed to switch us to the backup facility and back to the PCF. 

A two-hour functional testing window was expected. In the scenario, FMIS systems 

and data would be ‘‘failed-over’’ to the backup facility, and made available for testing during the functional testing window. The systems would then be ‘‘failed back’’ 

to the PCF, but the data would not be ‘‘failed back’’. Consequently, any changes 

made while testing at the backup facility would not be made to production data. 

Disbursing staff set minimal goals of accessing all critical FMIS subsystems. In 

a two hour functional testing window, the SAA would not have time to run critical 

batch processes such as those which would enable a single document to be taken 

from data entry in Web FMIS through payment in FAMIS. Consequently, plans 

were made to test each on-line step in the process separately. Additionally, the time 

constraint did not allow any overnight batch processes to be run. 

Within the limited scope of the test, most of the critical components of FMIS were 

tested. A request has been made to the SAA that disaster recovery tests be con-
105 

ducted twice a year and that additional system components be tested at each successive event. 

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 621 

books and matted and framed 532 items for the Senate Leadership. In addition, this 

office matted and framed 349 items for the 55th Inaugural ceremonies. For more 

than twenty-four years, the office has bound a copy of Washington’s Farewell Address for the annual Washington’s Farewell Address ceremony. In 2005, a volume 

was bound and read by Senator Richard Burr. 

As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library Collection Condition Survey, the Office 

of Conservation and Preservation continues to conduct an annual treatment of books 

identified by the survey as needing conservation or repair. In 2005, conservation 

treatments were completed for 139 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 

3,900 volumes. 

This office assisted the Senate Library with 531 books that were sent to the Library Binding section of the Government Printing Office (GPO) for binding. Additionally, the office worked with the Library to facilitate the creation of five exhibits 

located in the Senate Russell building basement corridor. The Office of Conservation 

and Preservation also assisted the Senate Curator’s staff with special matting and 

framing required for the World War II exhibit located on the first floor of the Capitol. 

This office continues to assist Senate offices with conservation and preservation 

of documents, books, and various other items. For example, the office is currently 

monitoring 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 George Mitchell was officially unveiled on May 24, 2005 as 

part of the Senate Leadership Portrait Collection, and a painting of Senator Margaret Chase Smith was unveiled on October 18. Both ceremonies were held in the 

historic Old Senate Chamber. Other important commissioned works in progress include a portrait of Senator Bob Dole and the Great Compromise mural. Both are 

projected to be completed in 2006. 

Thirty-eight objects were accessioned into the Senate Collection, including the 

painting Portrait of a Child with Moth by Constantino Brumidi; several rare 

stereoviews of the Senate Chamber from the late 19th century; tickets, passes, and 

luncheon items related to the 2005 Presidential Inauguration; ephemera from the 

200th anniversary celebration of the birth of Constantino Brumidi; and nine albums 

with images of Senators and Senate staff from the late 18th to the early 20th centuries. One of the nine albums contains rare cabinet cards depicting the 41st Congress made by the Matthew Brady studio, along with autographs of 73 Senators. 

In an ongoing effort to locate and recover historic Senate pieces associated with 

the institution, the Office acquired for the Senate Collection an important painting 

and a 19th century chair. The painting, Signing of the First Treaty of Peace with 

Great Britain by Constantino Brumidi, is the original sketch for the mural that appears in the Brumidi Corridors above the entrance to S–118. The chair dates to 

about 1819 and was made by Thomas Constantine for the Senate Chamber. It is 
106 

a noteworthy addition to the collection, as only 4 of the original 48 chairs made by 

Constantine for the Senate are known to exist. 

Fifty 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 28 objects in the collection was completed following established procedures. 

As construction continues on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), the Office has 

worked with a conservator specializing in museum facility planning to develop a collection storage plan for all objects scheduled to move to the designated curatorial 

storage rooms in the CVC. The plan includes detailed equipment layout and design 

in order to provide optimal preservation for storing the objects. 

The Curator’s Office continued with its project to photograph the 102 historic Senate Chamber desks (which includes the 100 on the Senate floor and two 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. Fifty-five desks were photographed in 2005; the project is ahead 

of schedule and is projected to be completed by August 2006. 

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, the Office submitted inventories of the art and historic furnishings in the Senate to the Rules Committee. The inventories, to be submitted every six months, are 

compiled by the Curator’s Office with assistance from the Senate Sergeant at Arms 

(SAA) and Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Senate Superintendent. 

Conservation and Restoration 

A total of 20 objects received conservation treatment in 2005. These included nine 

Senate Chamber desks, eight oil on canvas paintings, two cabinet card albums, and 

one manuscript collection. 

The initiative to conserve all 100 historic Senate Chamber desks, which began in 

1999, was completed. Twice a year, during Senate recess periods, desks were removed from the Senate Chamber and sent out for restoration. Treatment was extensive, and followed a detailed protocol developed to address the wear and degradation 

of these historic desks due to continued heavy use. In December, the last of the 

desks was restored. During this project, a condition survey was conducted and completed. The survey emphasized the necessity of installing rubber bumpers to the 

arms of the Senate Chamber chairs to minimize the damage to the front of the 

desks caused by the chair arms. That work was also completed this year, and all 

future chairs will be constructed with bumpers. 

After extensive evaluation and research, a scope of work was developed for the 

conservation of the portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart in the Senate 

Collection. This project coincided with a major exhibition on Stuart’s work at the 

National Gallery of Art, which afforded the opportunity to consult with experts in 

the field. The portrait was restored by conservators with extensive knowledge of Gilbert Stuart’s paintings; and the frame was also conserved. Restoration has revealed 

the Senate’s portrait to be among the finest of Stuart’s paintings of the first president. 

Two recently commissioned paintings, Blanche Kelso Bruce and James O. Eastland, were varnished by conservators to enhance and protect the surfaces now that 

the paint has properly cured. 

Another conservation project was related to the microfilming and digitization of 

the Isaac Bassett Papers, the manuscript collection of a 19th century Senate employee. Prior to microfilming, a conservator carried out the treatment and re-housing of the papers necessary for preservation. The entire effort to microfilm and 

digitize the collection was completed by the fall of 2005, and will help preserve the 

original papers in case of disaster, as well as provide reproductions for the use of 

scholars and other researchers. In addition, the digitized images provided extensive 

material for the Isaac Bassett website exhibit. 

The Office completed the detailed condition and identification survey of the nearly 

100 historic mirrors in the Senate wing. The project has significant benefits. The 

condition assessments will determine priorities for conservation and maintenance 

treatments; provide information on the age, origin, and importance of the frames; 

and furnish documentation for disaster planning. 

The Curator’s staff participated in training sessions for the Capitol Police regarding the care and protection of art in the Capitol, and continued to educate housekeeping personnel on maintenance issues related to the fine and decorative art collections. 
107 

Historic Preservation 

The Curator’s Office worked with the AOC and SAA to review, comment, plan, 

and document Senate side construction projects that involve or impact historic resources. In addition to receiving planning information from those organizations, the 

office initiated a procedure for sharing Curator project schedules. This has greatly 

improved coordination and project execution. Construction and conservation efforts 

that required considerable review and assistance included: Brumidi Corridor ceiling 

restoration near S–112; window shutter refinishing; grand stairwell plaster replacement; marble step repair; Brumidi west corridor egress installation; Minton tile replacement; wireless antenna installation; audio alert system; S–324 ceiling recreation; and S–229 renovation. 

As part of the S–229 renovation project, there was a request to provide an overmantel mirror for the room. The Office has developed a mirror replication project, 

to duplicate an historic mirror in the Capitol. The mirror selected for replication was 

a good example of a particular style, complements the majority of mantels and 

spaces in the Capitol, and will easily accommodate modifications of size and ornament in any future replications. The new mirror was created and installed. 

Requests from Senate offices for information pertaining to room histories, architectural features, and historic images continue to increase. Recent initiatives have 

greatly improved office response time and depth of knowledge. In addition, the Office is working in partnership with the AOC Curator’s Office and the Senate Historical Office to develop a room history program that will produce a definitive and upto-date history for significant Senate rooms and suites. 

Research projects undertaken this year included: the Assistant Democratic Leader’s suite; the Democratic Leader’s suite; and the Strom Thurmond Room, S–238. 

Additionally, the Office worked closely with the AOC in the creation of an historic 

structures report for the Senate vestibule, adjacent stairwell, and small Senate rotunda. This report provides critical documentation regarding the architectural chronology of these important historic spaces. 

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 U.S. Capitol Police, the Old Senate Chamber was closed to visitors after 

September 11, 2001. However, during Senate recesses the historic room is open to 

tours. Thirty-six requests were received from current Members of Congress for afterhours access to the Chamber. Of special significance was the reenactment swearingin ceremony for the newly elected Senators of the 109th Congress. Twenty-nine requests were received by current Members of Congress for admittance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber after-hours. Images of the room were provided to the Supreme Court Historical Society for use on a bicentennial coin honoring Chief Justice 

John Marshall. In addition, C-SPAN used high definition equipment in both chambers to take footage for an historical documentary on the U.S. Capitol, and both 

rooms were photographed for the CVC interactive exhibitions. 

In order to enhance existing documentation and to provide an important resource 

for future planning, the Office is working closely with the AOC to create condition 

drawings of the Old Senate Chamber that meet the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standard. Currently such detailed drawings do not exist for this chamber, or any space within the Capitol, yet this is important historical and archival 

documentation. When complete, the drawings will be accepted into the HABS national collection at the Library of Congress. 

The Office continued to research the origins of one of the Senate’s most important 

art works, the Eagle and Shield, in the Old Senate Chamber. This gilded carving, 

which dates from the early 19th century, has long been an important symbol of the 

institution. Initial research focused on the style and construction of carved eagles 

contemporary with the Senate. In addition, contacts were made with museums that 

house such eagles for further research. 

Loans To and From the Collection 

A total of 68 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 six paintings for leadership suites, returned five paintings at the expiration 

of their loan periods to their respective owners, and renewed loan agreements for 

29 other objects. 

The Office continued to document, photograph, and prepare various Senate Collection objects planned for exhibition in the CVC. Several of the objects (from an oil 

painting to a silver snuff box) will require conservation prior to installation in the 

exhibit hall, and the Curator’s office is assisting in this conservation. 
108 

Since 1982 the Senate has loaned a major historical painting, The Battle of Chapultepec by James Walker, to the Marine Corps Historical Museum in Washington, 

D.C. Originally the painting was displayed in the West Grand Stairway of the Senate wing from 1858 until 1961. The Marine Corps relocated to a new museum facility in 2005, terminating the Senate loan. Given the painting’s size, the Curator’s 

Office was tasked to identify another location for the painting. This historic work 

will be relocated to the Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art in 

Tulsa, Oklahoma, in early 2006. The Gilcrease Museum will provide an excellent 

venue for continued public display of the painting within the context of the history 

of the southwest region of the country. Development of a plan to safely remove the 

painting from display and transport it to its new location was greatly enhanced by 

consultation with the conservator on the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board. 

The Secretary’s china was distributed and returned four times in 2005. It was 

used for the Inaugural luncheon, as well as the First Lady’s luncheon. The inventory was increased with the acquisition of 85 cups and saucers. The official Senate 

china was inventoried and used at 41 receptions for distinguished guests. 

Publications and Exhibitions 

The Curator’s Office finalized the content and design for the United States Senate 

Catalogue of Graphic Art. The publication is scheduled for 2006. The volume features the Senate’s collection of more than 900 historic engravings and lithographs, 

and includes two full-length essays and almost 40 short essays discussing selected 

prints. The Senate Curator and Associate Senate Historian co-authored the publication. It is a companion volume to the United States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art, 

published in 2003. 

As part of an ongoing program to provide information about the Capitol’s art and 

historic spaces, three new information panels were installed for the following paintings: The Florida Case before the Electoral Commission; The Battle of Lake Erie; and 

First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln. 

In July 2005, to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of artist 

Constantino Brumidi, the office de-installed the popular photographic exhibition, 

World War II: The Senate and the Nation’s Capital and installed To Make Beautiful 

the Capitol: Birds of the Brumidi Corridors. This exhibition places in context the 

myriad of ornithological species that were painted by Brumidi and his team of artists. An online version of the exhibit was also developed for the Senate.gov website. 

Several other internet exhibits were posted including, Presidential Inaugurations: 

Invitations and Tickets in the U.S. Senate Collection and Inaugural Luncheons. The 

Office received delivery of the program files for two major websites, Isaac Bassett: 

A Senate Memoir, and The Senate Chamber Desks. Both were developed in conjunction with the Secretary’s webmaster and a contractor. Isaac Bassett features selections from the Isaac Bassett manuscript collection, with illustrations from the Senate’s collection of art and historical objects. It highlights life in the 19th century 

Senate based on Bassett’s personal observations and recollections. 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 website features actual images of Bassett’s handwritten notes and an interactive time line. 

The Senate Chamber Desks website chronicles the history of these historic furnishings, many of which date back to 1819. Viewers will see where each Senator 

sits and learn specific information about each desk: biographical information on the 

Senators who have occupied it; conservation and restoration information; and traditions and historical facts. This site will be launched in 2006, and updated at the 

beginning of each Congress to provide current information. 

Another educational project was the development of an oral history program related to the Senate’s art and historical collections. Artists were interviewed to gain 

valuable knowledge regarding recently commissioned portraits and this information 

will be posted on the Senate website in the near future. 

Adding to its presence on Senate.gov, the Office published the essays of the 160 

pieces of art in the United States Senate Catalogue of Fine Art. Several popular brochures were reprinted in 2005, and the office continued to be a significant contributor to Unum, the Secretary of the Senate’s newsletter. 

Policies and Procedures 

Meetings were held with the new Senate Curatorial Advisory Board. Composed 

of respected scholars and curators, this 12-member board was established to provide 

expert advice to the Commission regarding the Senate’s art and historic collections 

and preservation program, and to assist in the acquisition and review of new objects 

for the collections. 
109 

In 2005 the Senate passed legislation codifying the Senate Leadership Portrait 

Collection, which honors past majority and minority leaders and presidents pro tempore of the Senate. These portraits are to be commissioned after the leaders have 

completed their service. The resolution also provides that the portraits may hang 

in the Senate Chamber Lobby at the direction of the Senate. 

An electronic tracking system was developed to record progress through the steps 

of the accessioning process for new additions to the Senate Collection. The system 

allows reports to be generated that identify what types of documentation have been 

prepared and what remains to be completed for each new accession. 

Collaborations, Educational Programs, and Events 

As part of the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of artist 

Constantino Brumidi on July 26, 2005, the Curator’s Office promoted various Senate 

activities honoring Brumidi. As well as developing the exhibit on the birds of the 

Brumidi Corridors, the Office worked in partnership with Senate and AOC offices 

to generate articles and information panels about Brumidi’s importance and contributions to the Capitol, and to sponsor special tours highlighting the artist’s work. 

The Senate Curator and staff gave lectures on the Senate’s art and historical collections to various historical societies and art museums, including George Washington University, the Federal Preservation Institute, and the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. 

Office Administration 

The project to microfiche and digitize the collection object files was completed. 

These files are the primary legal title, research, and management records for all art 

and historical objects owned by the Senate and maintained by the Commission on 

Art. This project also serves important disaster recovery and archival preservation 

functions. Copies of the microfiche and digital records will be kept off-site for disaster recovery and archival purposes. Additional copies will be used on-site for research and public information in order to lessen the wear and tear on the original 

paper records. 

The Senate Support Facility was completed. The Curator’s Office worked for several years with the Sergeant at Arms to develop a space within the warehouse that 

meets the stringent requirements for storing fine and decorative art. Environmental 

testing for the museum-quality storage area is now underway, and relocation of collection objects to this space is scheduled for the summer of 2006. The office moved 

its non-collection items to the new warehouse, including exhibit and art shipping 

materials, and publications. These items were re-inventoried and new tracking numbers assigned. 

Automation 

The Office continued to improve its electronic collection management database to 

provide more efficient and accurate data recording and searches. The addition of 

several fields to record inventory location, date, and reviewer is one such change 

that improves the information regarding the current and previous locations for objects. The registration department also implemented an electronic tracking system 

to improve the accuracy and efficiency of loan renewals. 

In addition, the Office researched electronic systems that monitor temperature 

and relative humidity, to assure the stability of all objects on display and in storage. 

The ideal system will continuously download data for analysis and provide instant 

notification via phone, e-mail and/or blackberry when environmental conditions undergo a sudden and potentially damaging change. Staff worked with Senate Security 

on the initiative. Procurement and installation of the system may occur in 2006. 

In an effort to integrate new technologies, improve research capabilities, and address preservation concerns, the Office is developing an organization plan and procedures that will affect all types of files and media collected and maintained. The results will greatly improve response time to information requests, search capabilities 

for researchers, and the condition of significant reference materials. Related to this 

effort was the installation of an image management server. This service allows staff 

to store the many large-sized image files that are so vital to the Office’s mission, 

enables the images to be archived regularly, and prevents the immense number of 

items from clogging bandwidth time and storage space on the Secretary’s LAN servers. 

Objectives for 2006 

A major initiative will be to relocate Senate Collection items to the new SAA offsite warehouse facility. Work will include: developing an object tracking system; reviewing the SAA warehouse inventory system, access procedures, and protocol; ensuring all equipment, HVAC, and security needs are functioning; coordinating the 
110 

move with the assistance of fine art handlers; and developing a procedural document regarding the storage of collection objects at the SAA warehouse. 

The Office also will prepare for moving collection objects in 2007 to the two new 

CVC storage spaces. Based on the recently completed Collection Storage Plan, museum-quality storage equipment will be ordered to house collection objects in these 

new spaces. Objects in need of archival re-housing will be identified, prioritized, and 

re-housed in preparation for the move. 

The Curator’s environmental monitoring systems will be assessed in all locations 

where collections are displayed or stored. Temporary systems will be installed for 

evaluation, and following testing, a comprehensive program will be recommended 

and implemented as appropriate. 

An integrated pest management plan will be prepared for all storage spaces where 

collection items are located. The plan will include procedures for preparation of objects for storage, monitoring of conditions, and developing contacts and resources for 

disaster recovery. 

Conservation and preservation concerns continue to be a priority. Projects in 2006 

will include the treatment of several historic paintings and frames, as well as objects for new CVC exhibits. The Battle of Chapultepec will be relocated to the 

Gilcrease Museum in Oklahoma. The Office will build on the information generated 

by the recently completed mirror survey and develop a plan for the conservation and 

maintenance of the Senate’s historic mirror collection. The restoration of the painting, First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation, by F.B. Carpenter, is now projected to be completed in 2006. Additionally, the Office will focus on the Senate’s 

recently acquired Cornelius & Baker armorial chandelier. Following a condition assessment, the office will work with the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board to review 

treatment options and recommend a plan for the chandelier to the Commission on 

Art. 

The Office will advance efforts to commission portraits of Senators Byrd, Lott, and 

Daschle. Unveilings are projected for the portrait of former Senator Bob Dole and 

the Great Compromise mural. 

The Isaac Bassett Papers manuscript collection will be deposited at the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Initial meetings have been held with 

NARA to discuss organization and storage of the collection along with logistical considerations. As a result of the recently completed microfilming project, the office will 

submit the original collection, microfilm and digital copies of the papers, and extensive indexes for use by future researchers. 

The Curator’s staff will undertake a comprehensive and detailed survey of the 

Senate Chamber chairs. While the Senate Chamber desks have been studied extensively, the accompanying chairs, which date from various eras, have never been 

fully examined. It is hoped that this study will enable the identification and preservation of important chairs that still remain in the Senate. 

Collection activities will also include efforts to locate and recover significant historic Senate pieces. Investigations were conducted in 2005 to locate partner desks 

and other furniture made by George Cobb for the Russell Senate Office building in 

1909. A total of twelve desks were identified outside the Senate, and are either in 

private collections or on display in museums. 

In the area of education, the United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art will 

be published. The Office will produce a brochure for S–238, the Strom Thurmond 

Room. Also related to room histories, staff will continue to work with the AOC Curator’s Office and Senate Historical Office to finalize the room history program. 

The Office will embark on a reorganization of the Senate art website 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 Senate 

webmaster and Senate Library staff, and will be an important early step in creating 

and organizing the Senate’s web content according to standardized metadata. 

The Senate Preservation Board of Trustees will hold its first meeting, and the 

Senate Curatorial Advisory Board will continue to meet biannually. The Office will 

work with the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board to review and report on several 

preservation projects including: the historic structures report for the Senate vestibule, adjacent stairwell, and small Senate rotunda; the preservation of the Minton 

tile floors; and the current HABS-standard drawing documentation project. 

Work is underway to develop a five-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. Additionally, the 

Senate Curator’s Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) will be reevaluated, tabletop exercises conducted, and the COOP document updated. 
111 

3. JOINT OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee training and development opportunities for all Senate staff. There are three branches within the department. The technical training branch is responsible for providing technical training support for approved software packages used in either Washington or the state 

offices. This branch’s computer training staff provides instructor-led classes; one-onone 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 related and wellness issues. This branch 

also coordinates an annual Health Fair for all Senate employees and four blood 

drives each year. 

Training Classes 

The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 405 classes in 2005; 5,982 Senate employees participated in these classes. This office’s registration desk handled 

31,960 requests for training and documentation. 

Of the above total, in the Technical Training area 187 classes were held with a 

total attendance of 1,521 students. An additional 770 staff received coaching on various software packages and other computer related issues. 

In the Professional Development area 218 classes were held with a total attendance of 4,461 students. Individual managers and supervisors are also encouraged to 

request customized training for their offices on areas of need. 

The Office of Education and Training is available to work with teams on issues 

related to team performance, communication or conflict resolution. During 2005, 

over 50 requests for special training or team building were met. Professional development staff also traveled to state offices to conduct specialized training and team 

building. During the last quarter of the year, we offered training via video teleconferencing to two state offices and plan to continue this practice. 

In the Health Promotion area, 1,240 Senate staff participated in Health Promotion activities throughout the year. These activities included: cancer screening, 

bone density screening and seminars on health related topics. Additionally 1,492 

staff participated in the Annual Health Fair held in September. 

The Joint Office of Education and Training has been actively working with the 

Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness to provide security training for Senate staff. In 2005, the Office of Education and Training coordinated 63 sessions of 

escape hood and other security-related training for 1,010 Senate staff. 

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 2005, three sessions of this program were offered 

to 119 state staff. This office also conducted our annual State Directors Forum for 

the second year and 37 attended. In addition, this office has implemented the ‘‘Virtual Classroom’’ which is an internet based training library of 300∂ courses. To 

date, 379 state office and Washington, D.C. staff are accessing a total of 500 different lessons using this training option. 

4. CHIEF COUNSEL FOR EMPLOYMENT

Background 

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 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 employing office 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 (Defending Senate Offices in Federal Courts); Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits; Court-Ordered Alternative Dispute Resolutions; Union Drives, Negotiations, and Unfair Labor Practice Charges; OSHA/Americans With Disability Act 
112 

(‘‘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 represents each of the employing offices of the Senate in all court actions (including both trial and appellate courts), 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 

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 2005, the SCCE conducted 131 OSHA/ADA inspections of Senate offices to ensure compliance with the CAA. 

Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities 

The SCCE conducts legal seminars for the managers of Senate offices to assist 

them in complying with employment laws. 

In 2005, the SCCE gave 56 legal seminars to Senate offices. Among the topics covered were: 

—An Overview of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995: Management’s 

Rights and Obligations; 

—Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace; 

—How to Interview and Hire the Best Employee Without Violating the Law; 

—How to Conduct Background Checks, Reference Checks and Drug Testing Without Violating the Law; 

—Complying with Immigration Laws: I–9 and the Basic Pilot Program for Employment Eligibility Confirmation; 

—Labor-Management Overview: Union Post-Election Procedures; 

—Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 

—Management’s Legal Obligations to Give Military Leave to Employees; 

—Legal Pitfalls in Evaluating, Disciplining and Firing Employees; 

—How to Comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act. 

In addition, in 2005, the SCCE prepared new videos to accompany its harassment 

seminar. This involved writing the scripts, recruiting Senate employees to participate, training the ‘‘actors,’’ and working with the Recording Studio to direct, record, 

edit and finalize the vignettes. The purpose of the vignettes is to illustrate points 

raised during the harassment seminar with examples that are Senate-specific. The 

SCCE has received extremely positive feedback from Members’ offices at which the 

harassment seminars have been given using these new videos. 

Preventative Legal Advice 

The SCCE meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff, Administrative Directors, Office 

Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General Counsels at their request. 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 and/or terminating employees in compliance with the law, handling and investigating sexual harassment complaints, accommodating the disabled, determining wage law requirements, meeting the requirements of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 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/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 2005, the SCCE handled one union drive and assisted in negotiations with another union. With respect to the union drive, the SCCE trained managers and supervisors regarding their legal obligations during a union campaign, advised the client in selecting its representatives for the election and conducted training sessions 

for the employer representatives regarding proper conduct at elections. 
113 

Layoffs and Office Closings in Compliance with the Law 

The SCCE provides advice and strategy to individual Senate offices regarding how 

to minimize legal liability in compliance with the law when offices reduce their 

forces. In addition, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification 

Act (WARN Act), offices that are closing must follow certain procedures for notifying 

their employees of the closing and for transitioning them out of the office. The SCCE 

tracks office closings and notifies those offices of their legal obligations under the 

WARN Act. 

5. SENATE GIFT SHOP

The Senate Gift Shop was established under administrative direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Senate (SOS) in October 1992, (United States Code, 

Title 2, Chapter 4). With each successive year since its establishment the Senate 

Gift Shop has continued to provide outstanding products and services that maintain 

the integrity of the Senate as well as increase the public’s awareness of the mission 

and history of the U.S. Senate. The Gift Shop provides products and services to Senators, their spouses, staffs, constituents, and visitors. Products include a wide variety of souvenirs, collectibles and fine gift items created exclusively for the U.S. Senate. Services include special ordering of personalized products, custom framing, gold 

embossing, engraving and shipping. Additional services include the distribution of 

educational materials to both tourists and constituents visiting the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings. New this year is the Senate Gift Shop’s presence on Webster. 

Facilities 

For several years the Senate Gift Shop offered over-the-counter sales to walk-in 

customers at a single location. Today, after more than a decade of operation, the 

Gift Shop provides products and services from three locations. 

In addition to the three physical locations, the Gift Shop has developed an online 

presence on Webster. The intranet site currently offers only a limited selection of 

products that may be ordered either by phone or by printing and faxing the on-site 

order form. Long-term plans are to grow this site to include a greater sample of 

merchandise offered in the Gift Shop’s physical locations and to eventually migrate 

to an e-commerce website with online transactions. Along with offering over-thecounter, walk-in sales, and limited intranet services, the Gift Shop Administrative 

Office provides mail order service, special order and catalogue sales. 

The Gift Shop also maintains two warehouse facilities. While the bulk of its overstock is currently held in an off-site storage facility, a portion of the Gift Shop’s 

overstock is maintained in the Hart Building warehouse facility. This space also accommodates the Gift Shop’s receiving, shipping, and engraving departments. 

Operational plans for the off-site facility include having most, if not all, Gift Shop 

product delivered, received and stored at this location until the need for transfer to 

Gift Shop locations. Although the overall management of the warehouse is through 

the Sergeant at Arms (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 a centralized, climate-controlled facility that is managed by the SAA 

will provide better protection for the Gift Shop’s valuable inventory in terms of increased and steadfast security as well as prolonged shelf life for product. 

Sales Activity 

Sales recorded for fiscal year 2005 were $1,591,244.36. Cost of goods sold during this same period was $1,006,655.30, accounting for a gross profit on sales of 

$584,589.06. 

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, 

2005, the balance in the revolving fund was $1,833,614.70 and the inventory purchased for resale was valued at $2,295,554.07. 

Additional Activity 

The contractor selected to provide the hardware and system installation of the 

new retail and financial management system has completed its contractual obligations to the Senate Gift Shop with the final deliverables completed in 2005. The contractor will continue to provide hardware and software support for the retail system. 

Accomplishments and New Products in Fiscal Year 2005 

Official Congressional Holiday Ornaments 

The year 2005 marked the conclusion of the Gift Shop’s third consecutive ‘‘fouryear ornament series.’’ Each ornament in the 2002–2005 series of unique collectibles 

features an architectural milestone of the United States Capitol and is packaged 
114 

with corresponding historical text taken from the book, History of the United States 

Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics by William C. Allen, Architectural Historian for the Architect of the Capitol. 

The 2005 ornament pictures the Capitol’s West Front with particular emphasis 

on the newly landscaped lawn and terraces. Congress authorized the landscape improvements in 1873, and on June 23, 1874, passed an act to hire the first landscape 

architect of the United States Capitol, Frederick Law Olmsted. Olmsted’s idea for 

redesigning the landscape of the Capitol grounds is illustrated in a drawing titled 

‘‘General Plan for the Improvement of the Capitol Grounds.’’ In keeping with a Gift 

Shop tradition, the authentic colors of the original drawing were reproduced onto 

a white porcelain stone and set with a brass frame finished in 24kt gold. 

Sales of the 2005 holiday ornament exceeded 32,000 ornaments of which more 

than 7,400 were personalized with engravings designed, proofed and etched by Senate Gift Shop staff. This highly successful effort was made possible by the combined 

effort of our administrative, engraving, and store staffs. Additional sales of this ornament and ornaments from previous years are expected to continue throughout 

2006. Sales revenue from this year’s ornament, as in previous years, helps to provide scholarship funds for the Senate Child Care Center. 

The theme for the Gift Shop’s fourth series of ornaments, which will run from 

2006–2009, is currently in development with production of the 2006 ornament targeted for this summer and sale of the ornament expected to begin in September 

2006. 

China Porcelain Boxes 

The final porcelain ‘‘Brumidi’’ box in a set of four was completed and released for 

sale in 2005. Each box displays a different image from the Constantino Brumidi 

frescoes taken from the ceiling of the President’s Room in the Senate Wing of the 

United States Capitol. The individual boxes of the series include the allegorical figures: Liberty, Legislation, Executive Authority and Religion. These porcelain boxes, 

exclusive to the Senate Gift Shop, will be popular collector items for many years 

to come. 

Projects and New Initiatives for 2006 

History of the Capitol 

The Gift Shop will purchase for resale the book, History of the Capitol, (H. Doc. 

108–240) by Glenn Brown. When the GPO publication is released for sale to distributors and retailers in 2006, the Gift Shop plans to purchase a substantial quantity to ensure availability to its customers for an extended period of time. 

Congressional Plates 

The series of Official Congressional Plates continued in 2005 with new design features beginning with the 108th Congress plate, which became available for sale this 

past year. The balance of the series includes plates commemorating the 109th, 

110th and 111th Congresses. The design stage for the remaining plates has concluded and prototypes for the final three are being produced by Tiffany & Co. 

Constantino Brumidi Birthday Celebration 

The year 2005 marked the 200th Birthday of Constantino Brumidi, ‘‘The Artist 

of the Capitol.’’ In celebration of this special occasion, the staff of the Gift Shop 

worked closely with the staff of the Curator’s Office on an initiative to add to our 

collection of Brumidi-inspired merchandise. The new products include a designer 

collection of note cards depicting images of birds taken from the frescoes gracing the 

walls of the Capitol’s Brumidi corridors. Other products featuring Brumidi’s artwork 

that are currently offered for sale in the Senate Gift Shop include neckties, scarves, 

round porcelain boxes and the book Brumidi ‘‘Artist of the Capitol.’’ Additional 

Brumidi pieces are in production. 

Intranet/Webster 

The Webster intranet website for the Gift Shop continues to be enhanced. Primary 

considerations include website policy, design and layout, content and products to be 

included. Meetings concerning the creation and expansion of the Gift Shop’s website 

are ongoing with other Secretary departments. The Gift Shop’s intends to incorporate links to the offices of the Historian, Curator and Senate Library so that visitors to the website will have ready access to additional educational information. 

Capitol Complex Lumber 

In the fall of 2001 the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) required 

the removal of many trees from the Capitol complex. During this time, Allegany 

Wood Products (Allegany) of Petersburg, West Virginia, assisted in determining the 
115 

best method for the recover and transport of the felled trees. Arrangements were 

made for a local West Virginia trucking company to travel to Washington, D.C., to 

pick up and haul the cut trees to one of Allegany’s lumber mills, where the trees 

could be rough cut and kiln dried, a process which makes possible the preservation 

and long-term storage of the lumber. The stored lumber approximating 12,000 board 

feet is now being inventoried and segregated by species. Plans to determine the 

most appropriate use for the lumber will be developed this year. Preliminary ideas 

involve using a quantity of wood to create ‘‘official products’’ such as presentation, 

gift and commemorative items. 

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 

1,885 former 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 website. 

Editorial Projects 

Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1774–2005.—A new edition of the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress has just been published. In May 2003, 

both houses of Congress adopted H. Con. Res. 138, authorizing printing of an updated and expanded edition of the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–2005. The first edition of this indispensable reference source was published in 1859; the most recent edition appeared in 1989. This latest publication is 

the 16th edition. Since 1989, the assistant historian has added many new biographical sketches, expanded bibliography entries, and revised and updated most of the 

database’s nearly 2,000 Senate and vice-presidential entries. In preparation for the 

2005 edition, the assistant historian and historical editor updated the Congress-byCongress listing of members through the 108th Congress and updated the listing 

of executive branch officers. The assistant historian completed the editing and proofing of all Senate-related information, coordinating with the House Office of History 

and Preservation and the Government Printing Office. The assistant historian also 

continues to edit and update all 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. 

Administrative History of the Senate.—Throughout 2005, the assistant historian 

continued to research and write chapters of 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 reorganization and professionalization of Senate staff, and 

looks at how the Senate’s administrative structure has grown and diversified over 

the past two centuries. In particular, during the past year the assistant historian 

completed the work’s pivotal third chapter, which explores the Senate’s administrative history from 1836 to 1861, when Asbury Dickins was Secretary of the Senate. 

During this period, the first major administrative reform effort was launched, resulting in an expanded and more professional work force. 

‘‘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 Robert Caro in 2002, sharp-eyed 

analysts have left memorable accounts that may 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 will identify up to 40 major statements by knowledgeable observers. Each of the 40 brief chapters in the resulting 

publication will include a 500-word quotation and an essay that identifies the background of the observer and places the quotation in the context of the times in which 

it was written. 
116 

‘‘Rules of the United States Senate, Since 1789’’.—In 1980, Parliamentarian Emeritus Floyd M. Riddick, at the direction of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, prepared a publication containing the eight separate codes of rules 

that the Senate adopted between 1789 and 1979. In the early 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 the Senate’s current rules have 

evolved from earlier versions, including rules both added and dropped between codifications. Some modern Senate rules have their origins in the first code of rules that 

the Senate adopted in 1789. Many of those first rules can be traced to even earlier 

times—to rules Thomas Jefferson prepared in 1776 for the Continental Congress. 

This work, to be completed within the coming year, will contain the original text 

of all standing rules, beginning with those the Senate adopted on April 16, 1789. 

It will reprint each of the seven subsequent codifications (1806, 1820, 1828, 1868, 

1877, 1884, and 1979) along with changes adopted between each codification. Appendices will contain related rules of the Continental Congresses, the Maryland General 

Assembly (1777), the Senate of the Confederate States of America, Senate Impeachment Rules from 1798, and the abandoned joint rules of Congress. Footnotes and 

sidebars will provide brief explanations of the reasons for significant changes. 

‘‘Senate Stories: 200 Notable Days, 1787–2002’’.—This publication will present 200 

brief stories featuring the Senate’s best-loved and most notorious former members, 

its triumphs and tragedies, and some lesser-known moments that reflect the Senate’s character as the ‘‘World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.’’ Readers will learn how 

the Senate was created, who became the first cabinet member to be confirmed (and 

the first rejected), how decorum was not always strictly maintained on the Senate 

floor, and how a certain Senator’s toupee signaled a change in the seasons. These 

200 historical essays are drawn from a larger number prepared during an eight-year 

period for weekly delivery to an audience of several dozen senators. Those Senators 

appeared to appreciate these essays for adding historical context to their daily responsibilities. Historical Office staff researched and compiled sources and photographs for each essay to be included in the publication. 

Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC).—In 2005, Historical Office staff assisted with preparations and editing of printed materials, followed up on questions and reference requests forwarded to them by the JCCIC, 

made minor changes to the Web site as needed, and assisted the Recording Studio 

with preparing and editing text for the 2005 Inaugural video. Staff participated in 

an on-camera interview, responding to historical questions about presidential inaugurations, for use in the Inaugural video. Staff continues to maintain the Inaugural 

website as stewards until the next JCCIC forms in 2008. 

Oral History Program 

The Historical Office conducts a series of oral history interviews that provide personal recollections of various Senate careers. This year, interviews were completed 

with Leonard Weiss, former staff director of the Governmental Affairs Committee; 

Timothy Wineman, Senate Financial Clerk; and Dennis W. Brezina, former staff 

member of the Subcommittee on Government Research. Several interviews are in 

progress, and the interviews of Chuck Ludlam, former staff member of the Separation of Powers Subcommittee, have been processed and opened for research. The 

complete transcripts of 20 interviews have also been posted on the Senate’s Web 

site. 

Member Services 

Members’ Records Management and Disposition Assistance.—The Senate archivist 

continued the program of assisting 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. The 

archivist began revising the Records Management Handbook for United States Senators and Their Archival Repositories. 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. The archivist participated in a panel discussion 

at the annual meeting of the Association of Centers for the Study of Congress on 

‘‘Developing a Collaborative Approach to Web-Based Content (for congressional papers collections),’’ and also in the second symposium sponsored by the John H. 

Brademas Center for the Study of Congress at New York University, which focused 

on the development of a policy for the papers of public officials. The archivist orga-
117 

nized and led a session on procedures for handling classified documents that are discovered in members’ collections after they have been donated to an archival repository. This was presented at the Society of American Archivists annual meeting. 

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. 2,966 cubic feet of Senate records were transferred to the Archives. The archivist revised and published the Records Management Handbook for United States 

Senate Committees. Part of the revision entailed developing, with assistance from 

National Archives (NARA) staff, a protocol for transfer of electronic records to 

NARA’s Center for Legislative Archives. The Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs and its archivist developed and successfully implemented a 

project using this protocol to appraise and transfer electronic records to the archives. The archivist worked with the Budget Committee to find professional assistance to perform a records survey and to begin comprehensive archival processing 

of older transfers for the purpose of assuming better intellectual control over their 

historical collection. The archival assistant continued to provide processing assistance 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 year. The archivist will use 

these reports in 2006 to provide committees with suggestions for improvements. The 

archivist hosted a tour and briefing for chief clerks at the Center for Legislative Archives. 

‘‘Senate Historical Minutes’’.—The Senate historian continued a nine-year series 

of ‘‘Senate Historical Minutes,’’ begun in 1997 at the request of the Senate Democratic Leader. In 2005, the historian prepared and delivered a ‘‘Senate Historical 

Minute’’ at 21 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 website. 

Photographic Collections 

The photo historian created the first ever published pictorial directory of Senators, 

Faces of the Senate: A Pictorial Directory of United States Senators, 1789–2005. 

Since the First Congress convened in 1789, 1,885 men and women have served in 

the United States Senate. This invaluable reference source contains images of all 

but 46 of them. The images in the volume are arranged alphabetically by state, and 

further divided within each state by Senate class. This one-of-a-kind publication offers a unique visual representation of the collective Senate from its inception to the 

present. Prompted by the desire to make the Faces pictorial directory as complete 

as possible, the photo historian sought and acquired images of nearly 100 former 

Senators not previously represented in the Office’s collection. Many of these newly 

acquired images were obtained from various universities, historical societies, and 

state libraries throughout the nation. More than half of the images came from a collection of late 19th- and early 20th-century photo scrapbooks that were donated to 

the Office at the end of 2004. These scrapbooks were inventoried and copy negatives 

were made of many of the images contained therein. 

The photo historian continued to provide timely photographic reference service, 

while cataloging, digitizing, re-housing, and expanding the Office’s 40,000-item 

image collection. The office’s Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and vital electronic records were updated. As a contribution to the office’s educational outreach 

efforts, two online photographic exhibits were created for the Senate website—Capitol Scenes: 1900–1950 and World War II: The Senate and the Nation’s Capital. A 

third online exhibit, The Senate Through the Ages, has been created and will be 

available on the website shortly. A number of Senators’ offices were inspired by the 

Faces pictorial directory to display the images of all the Senators who had served 

from their state. The photo historian worked with the offices on these projects, providing the images and assisting in the design of the displays. 

Educational Outreach 

Much of the Senate Historical Office’s correspondence with the general public 

takes place through the Senate’s website, which has become an indispensable source 

for information about the institution. The assistant historian and the Historical Office staff maintain and frequently update the Web site with timely reference and 

historical information. In 2005, the Historical Office received 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 
118 

Senate website. The diverse nature of their questions reflects the varied levels of 

interest in how the Senate functions, its institutional history, and the individuals 

who have served in the body. 

In coordination with the 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 Constitution. Office staff also participated 

in seminars and briefings for specially scheduled groups. The Senate historian addressed a conference in the United Kingdom entitled, ‘‘What Are Senates For?’’ 

Sponsored by the University of London’s Institute for Historical Research, this symposium was designed to explore further reform opportunities for the House of Lords 

by examining the experience of legislative upper houses in other western nations. 

The associate historian delivered the keynote address to the Northern Great Plains 

History Conference in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, participated in a workshop on ‘‘Congress and History’’ at Washington University in St. Louis, and was part of a panel 

discussion on ‘‘The American Congress’’ at the National Archives and Records Administration. 

Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.—This eleven-member permanent 

committee, established in 1990 by Public Law 101–509, meets twice a year to advise 

Congress 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 serves 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. 

Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Content Committee.—Staff historians completed 

their assignments in drafting text for displays in the exhibition gallery of the Capitol Visitor Center. During 2005, the Office assisted Donna Lawrence Productions 

and Cortina Productions with background material for several visitor orientation 

films and interactive visual displays. 

Association of Centers for the Study of Congress.—In May, the Historical Office 

assisted with the third annual meeting of the Association of Centers for the Study 

of Congress. Among the centers involved in this promising new organization are 

those associated with the public careers of former Senators Howard Baker, Bob 

Dole, Everett Dirksen, Thomas Dodd, Wendell Ford, Hubert Humphrey, Richard 

Russell, John Stennis, and John Glenn. 

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 fulfill the legal requirements of the workplace and 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; employee 

handbooks and manuals; internal grievance procedures; employee relations and 

services; and organizational planning and development. 

The Human Resources Office also administers the Secretary’s Public Transportation Subsidy program and the Summer Intern Program that offers college students the opportunity to gain valuable skills and experience in a variety of Senate 

support offices. 

Classification and Compensation Review Completed 

HR conducted a complete classification and compensation study. This work product is the single largest program to come from this office since its inception. The 

classification study includes a comprehensive collection of current job classifications 

and specifications for every position in the Office. Other federal agencies are looking 

to move from the GS schedule to this concept of broad banding, which allows greater 

flexibility in ‘‘pay for performance’’ models rather than simple graduated steps. 

Policies and Procedures 

The Secretary, through HR, is updating and revising the Employee Handbook of 

the Office of the Secretary. With nuances in employment law and other advances, 

the policies are being reviewed, coordinated with counsel, revised and updated. An 

entirely new updated Employee Handbook will be available in 2006. 
119 

Employee Self-Service (ESS) 

HR has implemented use of the Employee Self-Service system (ESS) which is a 

secure system enabling Secretary staff to review and update personnel information 

pertaining to addresses, phone numbers and emergency contact information. Employees are now able to review and correct information to their electronic personnel 

records maintained by HR. Staff and managers can also access leave records and 

reports through this system. The ability to review and update this information is 

instrumental to maintaining accurate contact lists for emergencies or other contingencies. 

ESS is a useful communication method among a large staff. It is incumbent upon 

the department to find ways to solicit the feedback, suggestions and insight of staff 

in an effort to continually improve processes and procedures. One way we have incorporated this effort is in the ESS system. There is a ‘‘suggestion box’’ component 

to this service that allows staff to anonymously send a message to HR with a concern or suggestion, to be considered by HR and/or the Executive Office. 

Recruitment and Retention of Staff 

HR has the ongoing task of advertising new vacancies or positions, screening applicants, interviewing candidates and assisting with all phases of the hiring process. 

HR will coordinate with the Sergeant at Arms HR 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. 

HR assists in advising on performance-related issues and meets with staff and supervisors to develop performance improvement plans. Such plans help in both the 

development of a productive staff member and in making disciplinary recommendations when necessary. 

Outreach 

HR conducted the first Elder Care Fair that was made available to all Senate 

staff on October 24, 2005. The event provided an opportunity for staff to learn about 

and access local and nationwide services available to assist the elderly and those 

responsible for their care. 

Comprehensive resource manuals were created and distributed throughout the 

Senate and have been requested by specific offices, committees, and departments. 

The goal is to conduct an Elder Care Fair every other year. 

Training 

In conjunction with the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, HR works to prepare training for department heads and staff. Some of the training topics include 

Sexual Harassment, Interviewing Skills, Conducting Background Checks, Providing 

Feedback to Employees and Goal Setting. 

Interns and Fellows 

HR coordinates both the Secretary’s internship program and the Heinz Fellowship 

program. From advertising, conducting needs analyses, communicating, screening, 

placing and following up with all interns, HR keeps a close connection with the interns to make the internship most beneficial to them and the organization. 

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 Sergeant at Arms (SAA), the Government Printing Office (GPO), 

and outside vendors on technical issues and joint projects. The Department provides 

computer related support for all LAN-based servers within the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Information Systems staff provide direct application support 

for all software installed 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 Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Emphasis is placed on 

the creation and transfer of legislation to outside departments and agencies, meeting Disbursing office financial responsibilities to the member offices, and office mandated and statutory obligations. 
120 

Staffing and Functionality 

No incremental staffing changes occurred in fiscal year 2005. The staffing level 

has remained unchanged since 1998, although functional responsibilities for support 

in other departments have expanded. Information System 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 Secretary 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 

staff resident within the offices. Public Records, Stationery, and Gift Shop remote 

support was added in 2005. Information Systems personnel continue to provide a 

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 continue to actively participate in all 

new project design and implementation within the Secretary of the Senate operations. 

Improvements to the Secretary’s LANs 

The Senate chose Windows NT as the standard network operating system in 1997. 

The continuing support strategy is to enhance existing hardware and software supports provided by the Information Systems Department, and augment that support 

with assistance from the SAA whenever required. The network supports approximately 300 users’ accounts and patron accounts in the Capitol, the Senate Hart, 

Russell, and Dirksen Buildings, and the Page School. The total number of hardware 

servers retired in 2005 was 16. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Summary Results 

The Active Directory and Messaging Architecture (ADMA) marks the first time 

that all Secretary IT equipment is operating in a pure client/server relationship. The 

IT infrastructure foundation is now positioned for scaleable and expanded growth 

in all Secretary offices. 

The ADMA project implementation provided a central point of IT system administration, and the opportunity to implement enterprise wide solutions, namely Outlook Web Access and remote messaging, offsite access to Webster, LIS, and 

newswire services. 

Improvements incorporated in the Amendment Tracking Project now provide submitted as well as proposed amendments scanned for all Member offices. 

Microsoft released 37 critical security updates for each workstation in 2005. Information System staff incorporated new techniques to test and deploy these updates 

to all systems. Coupled with a secure ‘‘wake-up-on-LAN’’ technology, workstations 

that are turned off can now securely powered up on the weekend, security updates 

installed, turned off, and ready for ‘‘business as usual’’ on Monday morning. 

Active Directory and Message Infrastructure Project (ADMA) 

The Microsoft Outlook E-Mail client solution is referred to as the Messaging Architecture and the replacement of the existing Windows NT server installed base is 

referred to as the Active Directory project. The ADMA plan involved all staff employees and was integrated into one central Active Directory Secretary Enterprise 

in 2005. Each department (except the Disbursing Office and Chief Counsel for Employment) is now structured as an organizational unit within the new enterprise. 

In September 2005, phase one was completed, and phase two (Disbursing) was 

completed in December 2005. 

There are several benefits to the implementation of the ADMA: 

—All secure-id and Passface users have remote access to web-mail, Congress.gov, 

CRS, and news wire services; 

—Access to web based services is available from all public and private internet 

locations; 

—Centralized system administrative processes; 

—Higher level of active file sharing and improved collaboration between different 

business functions; and 

—Higher levels of messaging functionality during COOP events. 

Clearly, the implementation of ADMA for the Secretary involved numerous resources on the part of both the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary’s offices. The 
121 

importance of this single project provides the ‘‘base’’ for all future IT related projects 

in the coming years. 

Legislative Operation Upgrades 

The technical staff collaborated with the SAA application development software 

personnel to complete the transition of the Amendment Tracking System workflow 

process to a web-based solution. This redesign facilitates the scanning of submitted 

and proposed amendments for all Senate offices. 

Stationery Room Renovation Procurement 

The Stationery Room awarded a contract to replace the existing hardware servers 

in August 2005. This process had not been updated in over ten years. 

An enhancement to the Stationery Room’s services incorporated a Metro Subsidy 

system which allows Senate offices to request allotted subsidies in advance using 

a web-browser based connection. SAA provided the web-entry portal at PSQ, and 

the Secretary’s office installed the necessary SQL database server at PSQ. Hardware servers maintained jointly by SAA and the Secretary were initiated in 2005 

to provide this advance purchase request. 

Curator Project Management Software 

In May 2004 a project requirement surfaced to provide the Curator’s office with 

a method to create, edit, publish, and distribute information relative to numerous 

contracts and outside vendor projects. After evaluating these business requirements, 

the IT solution implemented now provides multi-user collaboration software to track 

and monitor these numerous projects. 

In parallel, working with SAA Research and Development, this solution was also 

deemed valuable to other Senate offices. Implementation of this package allows staff 

to communicate and share files regardless of location. A Senate wide rollout is expected in 2005. 

9. INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES

The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its 24th 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 are: NATO Parliamentary Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group; Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group; British-American Interparliamentary Group; United StatesRussia Interparliamentary Group; and United States-China Interparliamentary 

Group. 

In June, the 44th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group 

was held in Rhode Island. Arrangements for this successful event were handled by 

the IPS staff. 

As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the Leadership 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 continue to 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 Tempore, 

IPS staff also assists staff members of Senators and committees in completing the 

required reports. 

Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the Office of the Chief 

of Protocol, Department of State, and with 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 Sergeant at Arms 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 Leadership, 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. 
122 

Planning is underway for the 46th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, which will be held in the United States in 2006. Advance 

work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and British American Parliamentary Group meetings to be 

held in the United States in 2007. 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; and an extensive book collection on American politics, history, and biography. Other resources include a wide array of online 

systems used to provide nonpartisan, confidential, timely, and accurate information 

services to the Senate. The library also authors content for three websites: Legislative Information Service, Senate.gov, and Webster. 

Notable Achievements 

Information inquiries increased 26 percent. 

LIS nomination records enhanced with links to 1,074 full-text hearings. 

Senate Support Facility opened, providing archival storage for library collections. 

Project undertaken to provide electronic access to the Senate Historical Office’s 

3,000-volume book collection. 

180 Senate staff were provided LIS instruction. 

Information Services 

Legal, legislative, business, and general research are the primary components of 

the Senate Library’s mission. The two categories of patron requests are traditional 

requests resulting from walk-ins, telephone calls, faxes, or e-mails, and requests directed to library-produced web resources. As content providers to three websites— 

Senate.gov, the Legislative Information System (LIS), and Webster—the library’s 

work flow and procedures, staff skills, and information products have changed significantly and permanently. XML technology has significantly and positively impacted web work flow and work product. As a result, the library can meet the Senate community’s ever-increasing reliance on technology with accurate, pertinent, 

and current information in an even more timely and cost-effective manner. The response to the library’s commitment to web initiatives was a 26 percent increase in 

inquiries from the previous year. This marked the second consecutive year of double-digit increases. 

INFORMATION SERVICES TO THE SENATE 

Year Traditional 

Inquiries 

Web Inquiries Total Increase from 

Previous Year 

2005 .......................................................................................................... 33,080 823,076 856,156 26 percent 

2004 .......................................................................................................... 33,750 602,236 635,986 38 percent 

2003 .......................................................................................................... 46,234 348,198 394,432 Baseline 

Most of the activities supporting research also reflected significant increases, including 4,015 information packages delivered (∂23 percent) and 133,335 photocopies (∂13.75 percent). The number of loaned books and documents increased 27 

percent to 2,752 and 330 new borrowing accounts were established, bringing the 

total to 2,667. Other important contributors to the across-the-board increases were 

the October 2004 Senate-wide release of the library’s online catalog, which recorded 

nearly 4,000 user visits, the interactive New Books List, and the new e-mail book 

ordering service. In addition, more than 4,400 pages were produced from the library’s extensive microform collection of newspapers, journals, and congressional 

documents. 

Significant Projects 

Supreme Court Nominations 

A web-available history documenting the 158 Supreme Court nominations submitted to the Senate since 1789 was compiled and published. This unique web document features confirmation chronologies and embedded links to voting records, 

nominee biographies, and essays regarding special circumstances. The document has 

been published on Senate.gov, the Legislative Information System, and the Senate 

Library’s Home Page on Webster. 
123 

A related Supreme Court project provides web access to the text of confirmation 

hearings conducted since 1971 and Senate executive reports issued since 1993. 

These two categories of important documents were provided through collaboration 

with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Congressional Research Service (CRS), Government Printing Office (GPO), and Library of Congress Law Library. 

Senate Hearings on LIS 

The Legislative Information System nomination reports were enhanced with the 

addition of 886 Senate hearing numbers, the key to identifying a specific transcript 

in a library or at GPO. 

A related LIS project linked the hearing numbers to the full text of hearing transcripts at GPO Access. The June release of this new feature on LIS was followed 

by a November release on THOMAS. To date, this cooperative project between the 

Library of Congress and the Senate Library has established 1,074 full-text links to 

Senate committee hearings. 

Appropriations Legislation 

The library’s popular Appropriations Legislation series documents the history of 

appropriations measures since fiscal year 1993. The histories were significantly improved with the addition of links to full-text transcripts of nearly 200 Senate Appropriations’ hearings. An additional feature that links House hearing information to 

the web-based library catalog is available to Senate staff through the library’s Webster site. Simultaneous dynamic publishing to the histories on Webster, LIS, and 

Senate.gov was designed by the Web Technology Office and significantly improved 

editing procedures. 

Educational Services 

LIS Savvy classes, a new library outreach program, were introduced in March. 

The one-hour classroom sessions provided 180 Senate staff with expert LIS training 

from an experienced research librarian. In addition to the scheduled monthly sessions, six more classes, including a teleconference training session, were held to 

meet the demand. LIS Savvy classes complement the library’s responsibility as the 

Senate’s official Help Desk for commercial and legislative databases. 

In addition, 204 Senate staff attended library-sponsored seminars and events including 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. 

During 2005, the library hosted 179 visitors from graduate schools, professional 

organizations, and federal libraries. The tours included Catholic University and University of North Carolina graduate students; library staff from the Supreme Court, 

Central Intelligence Agency, and Library of Congress; D.C. Special Library Association members; and participants in the annual GPO Depository Library Conference. 

Technical Services 

Acquisitions 

The library received 11,988 (∂2.5 percent) new acquisitions in 2005. Of this number, 7,520 were congressional documents, 3,588 executive branch publications, and 

the remaining 880 items were books related to politics, American history, or biography. 

As a participant in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), the library 

receives selected categories of legislative, executive, and judicial branch publications 

from GPO. In 2005, the library acquired 11,108 items through FDLP. The trend to 

electronically distribute government publications has significantly reduced the overall number of paper documents issued; GPO reports that 95 percent of government 

documents are now issued electronically. The library responded to this trend by 

hosting 16,938 electronic catalog links, the majority of which are to government documents. 

A major project is the ongoing title-by-title evaluation of executive branch publications. During the fifth year of the project, 1,462 superseded or surplus items were 

withdrawn from the collection and 628 of these items 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, 379 

documents were reclassified and merged into the larger primary collection. 

Cataloging 

The library’s productive cataloging staff draws on years of experience to produce 

and maintain a catalog of more than 166,912 bibliographic items. During the year, 

10,385 items were added to the catalog including 5,179 new titles (∂10 percent), 

and 5,689 items were withdrawn. A total of 28,928 maintenance transactions con-
124 

tributed to the catalog’s content, currency, and record integrity. The library also contributed 664 personal names and congressional terms to the Name Authorities Cooperative program (NACO) at the Library of Congress. That number is exceptional 

and underscores cataloging skills and the very special nature of the Senate’s collections. As an international authority, NACO’s institutional participants create shared 

cataloging resources for the larger library community. 

Staff addressed the longstanding issue of tracking committee hearings. There is 

often a three to six-month period between the date a hearing is held and publication 

of the official transcript. To date, 383 records have been created for yet-to-be published hearings. Senate staff and researchers are now able to identify both published and unpublished Senate hearings by searching the library catalog. 

Other cataloging projects included assisting the Senate Historical Office in providing electronic access to their 3,000 volume book collection. Once completed, the 

entire collection will be searchable through the library’s online catalog. Since May, 

records for the first 638 titles have been completed. 

Web-Based Catalog 

The library’s online catalog, containing 166,912 bibliographic records, was released Senate-wide on October 25, 2004. During the first operational year, Senate 

staff searched the catalog on nearly 4,000 occasions. The public catalog is updated 

nightly to guarantee that Senate staff will retrieve accurate and timely information 

on library holdings. The holdings for electronic journals and government-issued serials, including annual reports and recurring documents, were added to the catalog 

in 2005. 

A four-month beta test of the latest catalog upgrade was followed by a June installation of the new 3.3 version. The beta testing provided an opportunity to recommend search and display improvements. Catalog users will see enhanced full-text 

search capability with system-generated equivalent and substitute terms. For more 

precision, exact-match searching, which provides more focused results, is also available. The catalog improvements have significantly integrated the majority of library 

resources onto the Secretary’s network. 

The library utilizes a statistical and analytical tool, to process raw data from the 

public catalog web server. This valuable management tool provides information on 

aggregate catalog usage and will result in improved design and service. 

Offsite Storage, Collection Maintenance, and Binding 

The Senate Support Facility was completed in December 2005 and will provide 

long-term, preservation-quality storage for library collections. The library’s designated area in the warehouse provides storage for 56,000 volumes, and has on-site 

security, fire suppression, museum-standard humidity and temperature controls, air 

filtration, and telecommunications. A collection of 25,000 historic and rare congressional documents will be transferred to the SSF in 2006. 

Preservation of the library’s 18th and 19th century collections resulted in several 

initiatives, including a volume-by-volume collection survey that will identify those 

titles requiring conservation, repair, or replacement. To prevent the growth of mold 

and mildew, routine monitoring ensures that strict temperature and humidity levels 

are maintained. To guarantee future availability and preservation, GPO bound 550 

library volumes for the permanent collection. 

Administrative 

Budget 

Budget reductions in 2005 totaled $2,544.32. Nine years of budget monitoring has resulted in reductions totaling $73,484.18. Continual review of purchases has eliminated 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 service level using the latest technologies and best resources in the most cost-effective manner. 

Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) 

The addition of a laptop computer significantly improved the library’s ability to 

meet COOP-related and special event responsibilities. With added remote access to 

the Senate.gov content management system (CMS), staff can efficiently update the 

floor schedule. To meet COOP requirements for an alternate work site, the library’s 

warehouse location will provide staff areas, a core reference collection, and access 

to the Senate network and telecommunications systems. 

Unum, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate 

Unum, the Secretary’s quarterly newsletter produced by Senate Library staff 

since October 1997, is an historical record of accomplishments, events, and per-
125 

sonnel in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Three issues were published during 2005, including a 16-page commemorative issue honoring the 200th anniversary 

of Constantino Brumidi’s birth. In addition, Senate-wide access to each of the thirtyseven issues was made available through Webster and the library’s catalog. 

Major Library Goals for 2006 

Relocate 25,000 volumes to the Senate Support Facility. 

Redesign the library’s Webster site. 

Identify a COOP-designated reference collection for the Senate Support Facility. 

Continue the review and reclassification of executive branch materials. 

Add Senate hearing numbers to LIS status reports for the 1987–2000 time period. 

Plan for server upgrades in preparation for future catalog requirements. 
126 

SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005—ACQUISITIONS 

Books Government Documents Congressional Publications 

Total 

Ordered Received Paper Fiche Hearings Prints Bylaw Reports/ Docs 

January ............................................................................................................................................... 21 65 234 86 206 19 48 342 1,000 February ............................................................................................................................................. 22 51 208 44 276 13 81 242 915 March ................................................................................................................................................. 20 81 397 142 243 28 74 273 1,238 

1st Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 63 197 839 272 725 60 203 857 3,153 

April .................................................................................................................................................... 18 78 161 35 214 35 53 204 780 May ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 98 122 42 183 27 80 367 919 June .................................................................................................................................................... 27 102 159 396 217 16 72 336 1,298 

2nd Quarter .......................................................................................................................... 79 278 442 473 614 78 205 907 2,997 

July ..................................................................................................................................................... 50 61 170 51 249 21 65 292 909 August ................................................................................................................................................ 21 75 120 78 276 25 58 324 956 September .......................................................................................................................................... 33 58 190 201 235 18 148 268 1,118 

3rd Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 104 194 480 330 760 64 271 884 2,983 

October ............................................................................................................................................... 32 82 187 76 283 17 68 293 1,006 November ........................................................................................................................................... 48 74 215 49 256 13 56 350 1,013 December ........................................................................................................................................... 20 55 174 51 288 20 81 167 836 

4th Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 100 211 576 176 827 50 205 810 2,855 2005 Total ............................................................................................................................ 346 880 2,337 1,251 2,926 252 884 3,458 11,988 2004 Total ............................................................................................................................ 225 716 2,329 985 3,180 217 1,171 2,955 11,698 

Percent Change .................................................................................................................................. 53.78 22.91 .34 27.01 ¥7.99 16.13 ¥24.51 17.02 2.48 
127 

SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005—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 ............................................................................................................................................... 42 22 6 17 13 353 4 51 466 February ............................................................................................................................................. 20 21 2 7 5 258 5 75 373 March ................................................................................................................................................. 121 25 16 7 2 315 5 114 484 

1st Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 183 68 24 31 20 926 14 240 1,323 

April .................................................................................................................................................... ................ 38 11 1 8 133 8 108 307 May ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 69 5 ................ 7 239 6 88 414 June .................................................................................................................................................... 44 121 8 2 5 403 6 67 612 

2nd Quarter .......................................................................................................................... 58 228 24 3 20 775 20 263 1,333 

July ..................................................................................................................................................... 647 47 2 2 17 197 2 42 309 August ................................................................................................................................................ 81 30 6 7 21 158 ................ 103 325 September .......................................................................................................................................... 28 49 8 1 7 246 1 98 410 

3rd Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 756 126 16 10 45 601 3 243 1,044 

October ............................................................................................................................................... 19 30 2 8 4 478 ................ 49 571 November ........................................................................................................................................... 46 21 5 2 33 337 ................ 64 462 December ........................................................................................................................................... 26 27 14 3 9 262 2 129 446 

4th Quarter ........................................................................................................................... 91 78 21 13 46 1,077 2 242 1,479 2005 Total ............................................................................................................................ 1,088 500 85 57 131 3,379 39 988 5,179 2004 Total ............................................................................................................................ 240 425 51 41 37 3,329 164 662 4,709 

Percent Change .................................................................................................................................. 353.33 17.65 66.67 39.02 254.05 1.50 ¥76.22 49.24 9.98 
128 

SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005—DOCUMENT DELIVERY 

Volumes 

Loaned 

Materials 

Delivered 

Facsimiles 

Micrographics 

Center 

Pages 

Printed 

Photocopiers 

Pages 

Printed 

January ............................................................................................... 213 333 119 534 5,874 

February ............................................................................................. 220 271 79 234 10,258 

March ................................................................................................. 254 384 143 479 8,567 

1st Quarter ........................................................................... 687 988 341 1,247 24,699 

April ................................................................................................... 202 357 75 151 12,082 

May .................................................................................................... 254 280 36 401 9,886 

June .................................................................................................... 225 366 73 413 11,183 

2nd Quarter .......................................................................... 681 1,003 184 965 33,151 

July ..................................................................................................... 210 252 112 158 8,617 

August ................................................................................................ 359 633 111 550 10,268 

September .......................................................................................... 216 317 70 320 13,095 

3rd Quarter ........................................................................... 785 1,202 293 1,028 31,980 

October ............................................................................................... 207 317 76 374 8,986 

November ........................................................................................... 225 273 38 414 8,894 

December ........................................................................................... 167 232 69 378 5,625 

4th Quarter ........................................................................... 599 822 183 1,166 23,505 

2005 Total ............................................................................ 2,752 4,015 1,001 4,406 113,335 

2004 Total ............................................................................ 2,165 3,265 1,904 4,522 99,636 

Percent Change ................................................................................. 27.11 22.97 ¥47.43 ¥2.57 13.75 

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 

Accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools continues 

until December 31, 2008. 

Two page classes successfully completed their semester curriculum. Closing ceremonies were conducted on June 10, 2005, and January 20, 2006, the last day of 

school for each semester. 

Orientation and course scheduling for the Spring 2005 and Fall 2005 pages were 

successfully completed. Needs of incoming students determined the semester schedules. 

Extended educational experiences were provided to pages. Twenty-one field trips, 

five guest speakers, opportunities to compete in writing and speaking contests, to 

play musical instruments and vocalize, and to continue foreign language study with 

the aid of tutors of four languages were all afforded pages. Six field trips to educational sites and three speakers were provided for summer pages as an extension 

of the page experience. National tests were administered for qualification in scholarship programs as well. 

Effective and efficient communication and coordination among the Sergeant at 

Arms, Secretary, Party Secretaries, Page Program, and Page School continues. 

The evacuation plan and COOP have been reviewed and updated. Pages and staff 

continue to practice evacuating to primary and secondary sites. 

The community service project embraced by pages and staff in 2002 continues. 

Items for gift packages were collected, assembled, and shipped to military personnel 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. The pages included letters of support to the troops participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. Several recipients of gift packages wrote 

letters to the pages expressing their appreciation. 
129 

Staff and pages participated in escape hood training. 

Tutors were trained in evacuation procedures. 

Updated materials and equipment were purchased. These included five Titanium 

calculators, supplemental English textbooks, pre-calculus textbooks, and political 

science and American government texts. 

Faculty have pursued learning opportunities. One participated in the Veterans 

History Project workshop at the Library of Congress; another attended an AP Physics workshop, a Hazard Communications seminar, the T3 International conference, 

and a PASCO workshop; and a third attended the National Council of Teachers of 

Mathematics convention as well as the T3 International Conference and completed 

two courses in his doctoral program. 

All sinks in the science lab have been retrofitted with aspirators. 

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, German, 

Latin, and Japanese. 

—The focus of field trips will be sites of historic, political, and scientific importance which complement the curriculum. 

—Staff development options will include attendance at a technology conference, 

seminars conducted by Education and Training, and subject matter conferences 

conducted by national organizations. 

—The community service project will continue. 

12. PRINTING AND DOCUMENT SERVICES

The Office of Printing and Document Services (OPDS) serves as the liaison to the 

Government Printing Office (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 2005, the OPDS prepared 4,439 printing and binding requisitions authorizing the 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 

office’s online blank paper ordering system, implemented in 2003, continues to be 

a popular option for Senate staff. The OPDS also coordinates a number of publications for other Senate offices, such as the Curator, Historical Office, Disbursing, 

Legislative Clerk, and Senate Library in addition to the U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. 

Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol. These tasks include providing guidance 

for design, paper selection, specifications for quotations, monitoring print quality 

and distribution. Last year’s major printing projects included the Report of the Secretary of the Senate and the Semiannual Report of the Architect of the Capitol. Current major projects for the office include a full color version of the ‘‘History of the 

U.S. Botanic Garden 1861–1991’’, ‘‘Headlines in Senate History’’ a compilation prepared by the Senate Historical Office, and the ‘‘U.S. Senate Catalogue of Graphic 

Art’’ a companion volume to the fine art catalogue. 
130 

Hearing Billing Verification 

Senate committees often use outside reporting companies to transcribe their hearings. The OPDS processes billing verifications for these transcription services ensuring that costs billed to the Senate are accurate. During 2005, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies and corresponding Senate committees a total of 949 

billing verifications of Senate hearings and business meetings, a 20 percent increase 

over the previous year. Over 66,000 transcribed pages were processed at a total billing cost of over $426,000. 

The OPDS utilizes a program developed in conjunction with the Sergeant at Arms 

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 2005 the office continued processing all file 

transfers between committees and reporting companies electronically, ensuring efficiency and accuracy. Department staff continues training to apply today’s expanding 

digital technology to improve performance and services. 

HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND BILLING VERIFICATIONS 

2003 2004 2005 Percent change 

2005/2004 

Billing Verifications ...................................................... 975 787 949 ∂ 20.6 

Average per Committee ................................................ 51.3 41.4 49.9 ∂ 20.6 

Total Transcribed Pages ............................................... 70,532 56,262 66,597 ∂ 18.4 

Average Pages/Committee ............................................ 3,712 2,961 3,505 ∂ 18.4 

Transcribed Pages Cost ................................................ $461,807 $366,904 $426,815 ∂ 16.3 

Average Cost/Committee .............................................. $24,288 $19,311 $22,463 ∂ 16.3 

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 as 

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 the 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 9,984 

distinct legislative items in 2005, including Senate and House bills, resolutions, 

committee and conference reports and executive documents. 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATISTICS 

2003 2004 2005 

Pages Printed: 

For the Senate .................................................................................. 16,835 12,642 16,393 

For the House .................................................................................... 16,259 14,243 18,394 

Total Pages Printed ...................................................................... 33,094 26,885 34,787 

Copies Printed and Distributed: 

To the Senate .................................................................................... 307,917 227,192 295,366 

To the House ..................................................................................... 441,735 331,165 397,327 

To the Executive Branch and the Public .......................................... 449,750 323,957 356,770 

Total Copies Printed and Distributed .......................................... 1,199,402 882,314 1,049,463 
131 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATISTICS—Continued 

2003 2004 2005 

Production Costs: 

Senate Costs ..................................................................................... $9,886,805 $7,961,741 $6,640,823 

House Costs ...................................................................................... $9,563,592 $9,026,893 $8,933,244 

Other Costs ....................................................................................... $693,141 $555,010 $440,639 

Total Production Costs ................................................................. $20,143,538 $17,543,644 $16,014,706 

Although accessing legislative documents through the World Wide Web is popular, 

there is still a strong need for printed documents. The OPDS continually tracks demand for all classifications of Congressional legislation and twice yearly adjusts the 

number of documents ordered in each category to closely match demand. As a result, document waste has decreased significantly over the past several years. 

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. In 2005, ordering of legislative 

documents on-line increased by 260 percent. The Legislative Hot List Link, where 

Members and staff can confirm arrival of printed copies of the most sought after 

legislative documents, is 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 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 in addition to mail requests. 

The office stresses prompt, courteous and accurate answers to Senate and public requests. 

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STATISTICS 

Year Congress/ 

session Public mail FAX request On-line request 

Counter re- quest 

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 

On-Demand Publication 

The office produces additional copies of legislation as needed in the DocuTech 

Service Center which is staffed by experienced GPO detailees. On-demand printing 

and binding of bills and reports is provided to Member offices and Senate committees. In March 2004, the office coordinated the installation of a new, improved 

DocuTech high-speed digital copier and production publisher. This machine decreases the quantities of documents printed directly from GPO and increases the 

ability to reprint documents on-demand on a larger scale. The DocuTech is 

networked with GPO allowing print files to be sent back and forth electronically. 

It also provides the advantage of quickly printing necessary legislation for the Senate floor and other offices in the event of a GPO COOP situation. During 2005, the 

DocuTech Center produced 530 tasks for a total of 891,871 printed pages, a 35 percent increase over the previous year. 

Accomplishments and Future Goals 

The OPDS experienced an increased volume of business during 2005. Staff members attended both technical and management continuing education courses, always 

working toward the goal of providing customers, the Senate community and the 

public, with prompt and accurate service. Future goals include working with the 

GPO on improving job flow procedures. This includes sending customers electronic 

proofs for print jobs, as well as developing new database reports on serial set publications for the Senate Library and inventory tracking of materials housed in the 

new Senate Materials Facility. 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. 
132 

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 2004, through September 2005, the Public Records office staff 

assisted more than 2,200 individuals seeking information from reports filed with the 

office. This figure does not include assistance provided by telephone, nor assistance 

given to lobbyists attempting to comply with the provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. A total of 102,977 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 2005 Accomplishments 

The office developed on-site scanning redundancy with other offices under the Office of the Secretary. The office also modernized the on-site public access software. 

Automation Activities 

During fiscal year 2005, the Senate Office of Public Records developed the capacity to be able to scan time-sensitive documents in the event of a breakdown of the 

principal scanner. 

Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended 

The Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly reports in a non-election year. 

Filings totaled 4,447 documents containing 278,264 pages. 

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 

The Act requires semi-annual financial and lobbying activity reports. As of September 30, 2005, 6,485 registrants represented 20,099 clients and employed 32,890 

individuals who met the statutory definition of ‘‘lobbyist.’’ The total number of lobbying registrations and reports processed was 49,401. 

Public Financial Disclosure 

The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 16, 2005. The reports were available to the public and press by Tuesday, June 14th. Copies were 

provided to the Select Committee on Ethics and the appropriate State officials. A 

total of 2,900 reports and amendments was filed containing 15,878 pages. There 

were 301 requests to review or receive copies of the documents. 

Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule) 

The Senate Office of Public Records has received over 1,691 reports during fiscal 

year 2005. 

Registration of Mass Mailing 

Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis. The number of 

pages was 558. 

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, 2005 through December 31, 2005. 

Personnel Security 

Four hundred eighty-five Senate employees held one or more security clearances 

at the end of 2005. This number does not include clearances for employees of the 

Architect of the Capitol or for Congressional Fellows assigned to Senate offices. OSS 

also processes these clearances. 

OSS processed 2,361 personnel security actions in 2005, a 24 percent increase 

from 2004. One hundred-seven investigations for new security clearances were initiated last year, and 58 security clearances were transferred from other agencies. 

Senate regulations, as well as some Executive Branch regulations, require that indi-
133 

viduals 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 70 Senate employees. 

OSS processed 218 routine terminations of security clearances during the reporting 

period and transmitted 339 outgoing visit requests. The remainder of the personnel 

security actions consisted of updating access authorizations and compartments. 

Overall, the average time required by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for processing security clearances (by means of 

investigation and adjudication) has increased from 260 days to 332 days. The average time for investigations has increased by 27.7 percent relative to 2004. Since the 

previous increases for 2002 to 2003 was 66.7 percent and 2003 to 2004 was 25.6 

percent, this represents a very significant increase in the last two years. The average time for an initial investigation conducted and adjudicated by the DOD is 305 

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 increased 19.1 percent. 

The periodic reinvestigation process averages 385 days, an increase of 42.6 percent relative to 2004. The average time for an initial investigation conducted by the 

FBI and adjudicated by DOD is 256 days, while the periodic reinvestigation process 

averages 447 days. The FBI investigation with DOD adjudication times represents 

an increase of 1.6 percent and 69.3 percent respectively. 

Two hundred thirty-nine records checks were conducted at the request of the FBI, 

ATF and OPM. One record check each was performed on behalf of OPM and ATF. 

The remaining checks were performed for FBI. This represents a 15.5 percent increase in records checks completed by OSS. 

Security Awareness 

OSS conducted or hosted 75 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 2 percent increase from 2004. 

Document Control 

OSS received or generated 2,792 classified documents consisting of 90,217 pages 

during calendar year 2005. This is a 0.4 percent decrease in the number of documents received or generated in 2004. Additionally, 67,899 pages from 4,082 classified documents no longer required for the conduct of official Senate business were 

destroyed. This represents a 52.9 percent increase in destruction. OSS transferred 

700 documents consisting of 26,625 pages to Senate offices or external agencies, 

down 40.9 percent from 2004. 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 

7,575 document transactions and handled over 184,742 pages of classified material 

in 2005, an increase of 40.9 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 919 occasions during 2005. Use 

of OSS conference facilities decreased 19.7 percent from 2004 levels. Five hundred 

forty-six meetings, briefings, or hearings were conducted in OSS’ three conference 

rooms. Of those, twelve were ‘‘All Senators’’ briefings and six 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 373 occasions in 2005. 

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. 

—To 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. 

—To purchase supplies utilizing open market procurement, competitive bid and/ 

or GSA Federal Supply Schedules. 
134 

—To maintain individual official stationery expense accounts for Senators, Committees, and Officers of the Senate. 

—To render monthly expense statements. 

—To insure receipt of reimbursements for all purchases by the client base via direct payments or through the certification process. 

—To make payments to all vendors of record for supplies and services in a timely 

manner and certify receipt of all supplies and services. 

—To provide delivery of all purchased supplies to the requesting offices. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Statistics Fiscal Year 2004 Statistics 

Gross Sales ............................................................................................................................. $5,247,163 $4,740,221 

Sales Transactions .................................................................................................................. 60,247 58,682 

Purchase Orders Issued .......................................................................................................... 8,611 6,741 

Vouchers Processed ................................................................................................................. 9,206 7,485 

Mass Transit Media Sold ........................................................................................................ 75,607 67,836 

$20.00 ............................................................................................................................ 64,527 60,564 

$10.00 ............................................................................................................................ 3,923 3,923 

$5.00 .............................................................................................................................. 7,157 3,148 

Time Employees (FTE) ............................................................................................................. 13 13 

Fiscal Year 2005 Highlights and Projects 

Flag Purchase Modernization Project.—During fiscal year 2005, with the assistance of the Architect of the Capitol and the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the Stationery 

Room embarked on a program to develop a method in which Member offices could 

purchase flags which had been flown over the Capitol, but were not date or occasion 

specific. Research revealed that approximately 37 percent of all flag requests by constituents were only to obtain a flag flown over the Capitol. It was reasoned that if 

flags could be flown in advance, significant wait times could be reduced. Thus, the 

Senate Sergeant at Arms PG&DM Division created artwork for a generic 

customizable flag certificate, along with a CD template that could be used in the 

customization process. 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. Currently this program is in use by a pilot group of Member 

offices. 

Senate Service Award Project.—At the end of fiscal year 2004, authorization was 

granted to proceed in the development of a program to recognize Senate staff who 

have completed twenty and thirty years of Senate service. Working closely with the 

Committee on Rules and Administration, the Senate Disbursing Office and Stationery Room vendors, a new Service Award Certificate was developed. This project 

resulted in the presentation of approximately 540 certificates to staff members who 

were employed in the Senate as of September 2004. 

Mass Transit Subsidy Electronic Submissions.—This project came to fruition with 

a fully functional application developed in-house by the Senate Sergeant at Arms 

Information and Technology’s Research and Development team. This application allows users to submit their requests for Mass Transit media via a web-based solution. Once submitted, the request is filled by Stationery Room staff and notification 

is made to the requesting office that their media is ready. The Senate currently has 

120 offices participating in the Mass Transit Subsidy Program of which 97 offices 

are submitting requests electronically. 

Senate Support Facility.—A new off-site facility affords the Stationery Room a 

1,800 square foot secure work area along with an additional pallet storage area 

which will accommodate 190 pallets of merchandise. Stationery Room staff is also 

working on logistical and additional usage functions in this modern facility as a tenant user, including the ability to use the assigned space as a distribution center for 

product. 

Computer Modernization.—For over two years, the Stationery Room has worked 

to achieve modernization of its aged computer system. These efforts culminated in 

the ‘‘rollout’’ on August 4, 2005 of a new, state of the art sequel-based retail point 

of sale and accounting system. The base product installation will allow the Stationery Room to manage its inventory by location; provide account holders with detailed monthly transaction information; eliminate paper transaction storage with information stored for retrieval from the system on demand, and a host of other features that new technology now provides. 
135 

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 website, www.senate.gov 

(except individual Senator and Committee pages); the Secretary website 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 (www.senate.gov) 

The United States Senate Web site celebrated its 10 year anniversary in 2005. 

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 World Wide 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. 

The second Senate home page, introduced in January 1997, provided a graphical 

interface, a virtual tour of the Capitol, access to Senate committee pages, and improved access to legislative data. Information about institutional procedures, history, and statistical records were also new to the site. 

Senate floor and committee schedule information was provided when the 106th 

Congress convened and the third home page was launched on January 6, 1999. The 

site received a Federal Design Award, issued by the National Endowment for the 

Arts and the General Services Administration. The award recognized the site for 

‘‘humaniz[ing] the venerable institution of the Senate by making its everyday activities and rich history readily accessible to the public.’’ 

The Senate’s fourth home page was launched in October 2002 and included the 

functionality of a powerful, behind-the-scenes content management system. The previous web sites were maintained by a small team of 5 staff who knew HTML and 

could code content for display in web browsers. This new system allowed non-technical subject experts to post information to the Web site, greatly increasing the 

amount of relevant information available to the public. Over 30 contributors from 

eleven departments in the offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms now 

publish text and images on the Web site. 

In 2005 the newest graphical interface was designed for www.senate.gov, bringing 

more content to the front page, and providing access to Senators’ websites from 

every page on the site. To help visitors find information, links to popular features 

were added to the homepage and a new site-wide search, available from every page, 

was introduced. 

The SAA conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the search appliance to see if 

it is compatible with the Senate environment. Secretary staff did extensive testing 

during the evaluation period and determined that the new search would work for 

senate.gov. This department also participated in developing the custom tag for use 

by Senate offices who want to put a search feature on their own web pages to search 

only their own web site content. 

There were more than 50 million visitors to the Senate website in 2005—five 

times more than the estimated 8 million visitors in 2001. The latest changes and 

additions to the Senate Web site will greatly assist these visitors in connecting with 

their Senators and in finding the information they seek. 

Senate.gov Web Development Projects 

Web Technology staff worked with content providers to create several special features for the Senate website: 

The Political Cartoons of Puck Exhibit 

Puck, a satirical weekly magazine that parodied the American political scene was 

one of the most popular periodicals of the late 19th century. The new Puck Exhibit 

on senate.gov includes slideshows of Puck cartoons and ‘‘Take the Puck Challenge,’’ 

an innovative, interactive series of riddles designed to give readers insight to the 

political satire. 

Birds of the Brumidi Corridors Exhibit 

Constantino Brumidi included designs for more than 350 individual birds of at 

least 100 species in his paintings in the Senate corridors. A new exhibit on senate.gov features these paintings of birds in several slideshow presentations. 
136 

World War II: The Senate and the Nation’s Capitol 

This slideshow photo exhibit focuses on the Senate and the role it played in supporting the war effort and its aftermath and honors the brave men and women of 

World War II who sacrificed so much to preserve the ideals of liberty and representative democracy. 

LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM (LIS) PROJECT

The Legislative Information System (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 Legislative Information System (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 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 to create an application that meets the needs for legislative 

drafting. 

LISAP: 2005 

The SLC began using LEXA to draft legislation in early 2004. The SLC offered 

valuable feedback throughout that year on LEXA’s continued development as new 

features were added and additional document types, such as amendments and reported bills, were added. Just prior to the beginning of the 109th Congress, the LIS 

Project Office provided a one-day training course on several new and enhanced features of LEXA, and the SLC began 2005 creating 60 percent of their drafts of introduced bills and resolutions in XML. By the end of the session, 80 percent of all introduced and reported bills and resolutions (and countless amendments) had been 

created in XML. Several very large drafts were created in XML, including the energy bill and the highway bill. Feedback and development continued throughout 

2005. Additional features and document types—conference reports, constitutional 

amendments, and engrossed and enrolled bills—were added to LEXA. LEXA’s authoring environment offers many automated document creation functions, providing 

a faster, more consistent drafting process. 

As LEXA becomes more widely used in the SLC and other offices, support of the 

application becomes increasingly important. The 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed the Government Printing Office (GPO) to provide support for 

LEXA. GPO took over maintenance and support of the software module that converts a Senate XML document to locator for printing through Microcomp, and is now 

updating the software to print House XML documents. GPO is also working to solve 

problems with the software that creates and prints tables, and that table tool will 

be replaced with a more robust one sometime in 2006. 

The LIS Project Office worked closely with several key House, GPO, and Library 

of Congress groups involved in the XML project to ensure that the House and Senate XML authoring applications produce compatible electronic and printed documents that may be exchanged among the organizations processing the documents. 
137 

The groups held several meetings in August and agreed to use the same tools to 

create tables and print XML documents through Microcomp. The House and Senate 

software development groups also reached agreement on several technical authoring 

issues and standards, thereby eliminating the need for additional processing when 

a document is exchanged between the House and the Senate. 

The project to convert the compilations of current law to an XML format was completed in early September. Staff in the House and Senate Legislative Counsel Offices update the compilations, and both groups participated in the project. The compilations are used as the basis for many legislative drafts and having the XML data 

will make it easier for both offices to use the text of compilations for drafting legislation in XML. 

The LIS Project Office provides support for LEXA via the LEXA HelpLine and 

LEXA website. The HelpLine is provided through a single phone number that rings 

on all the phones in the office, and the website is located on a server accessible by 

the legislative branch. The website, 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 Office continued to update the LEXA 

Reference Manual as new features were added to LEXA. 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 document management system (DMS) for the SLC will be implemented once 

the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to LEXA. The Systems Development Services group of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms continues to update the 

DMS to the most recent releases of Documentum and verifies that all SLC requirements will be met. The Systems Development Services group provides support and 

maintenance for the LIS/DMS, and that group will also support the DMS for the 

SLC once it is deployed. The LIS Project Office has been monitoring the upgrade 

effort and will contract for transition training to be developed and delivered prior 

to implementation. The DMS will be integrated with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking, management, and delivery tool. 

LISAP: 2006 

The Office of the Enrolling Clerk will begin to use LEXA to produce engrossed 

and enrolled bills in XML from the XML versions of introduced and reported bills. 

The Legislative Branch XML Technical Committee will work together to develop the 

document type definitions for creating appropriations bills. Once the definitions are 

completed and validated, the LIS Project Office will enhance LEXA to add the ability to create appropriations language, starting first with appropriations amendments created by the SLC. Following that, we hope to begin discussions with the 

Appropriations committee staff that prepare the bills for printing. 

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. For 

example, eliminating XyWrite will finally give the SLC the opportunity to implement a document management system and automate other office functions. Other 

Senate offices that do drafting with XyWrite may begin using LEXA, including the 

Committee on Appropriations. Thus far in the second session of the 109th Congress, 

approximately 96 percent of introduced bills and resolutions have been created as 

XML documents. 

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 reverified 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 doc-
138 

ument 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. 

NEW TECHNOLOGY IN THE SENATE

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your leadership. Businesses and 

agencies have to make constant decisions about the technology that 

they use in their offices. You have shared with us some of the high 

tech services that you’re providing to the public and to Members 

of the Senate. How does your office continue to take advantage of 

technological developments and incorporate them into your services 

provided to the Senate, when do you determine that the technology 

has ripened to the point where you can bring it in and not create 

a lot of problems? How do you make those kind of decisions? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. You know that’s a great question, and the Sergeant at Arms is very much a partner with us in any technological 

development, as they, as you know better than I, certainly have the 

lead in this for the Senate. I think the pilot projects, I mentioned 

the flag project in particular, we have a number of pilots going 

with disbursing through our financial management information 

system. The best way for us to determine when something is ripe 

if you will, or ready for a roll out is because we’ve been through 

that pilot phase and we’ve worked directly with Senate offices to 

understand what works and what doesn’t work, so they’re invaluable to us in that feedback. 

But you’re right, staying ahead of that curve, whether it’s something small, like being able to book the LBJ room online, or order 

your paper online for your office through printing and documents 

to something as large as our Senate amendment tracking system, 

or our FMIS project with disbursing, we’re constantly striving to 

serve this community better. 

And I also want to make one quick mention as well, on the 

website of a new addition that hopefully will be rolled out this 

year, because as I’ve said, keeping that website fresh, especially for 

the public, is important to us. And there should be one addition 

coming there on the Senate desks, which I think will be of enormous interest to you and your colleagues and also to the public. Actually going in and looking at each desk, explaining its history, 

talking about the conservation of the desk. So again, from simple 

things to large, and again remaining current for the public we’re 

constantly striving to stay ahead of the curve if you will. 

LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. I’m going to move on to the Office 

of Public Records, which is under your jurisdiction as Office of the 

Secretary of the Senate. We’re looking at lobbying reform, and it 

has the potential to increase filings by a considerable amount as 

I understand it. Could you give me an overview of that operation 
139 

and tell me whether you have sufficient resources to implement a 

significant increase in filings? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. I really appreciate that question and obviously 

there’s been a great deal of discussion here in these last few weeks 

alone. Our public records office has been in the business of receiving those lobbying disclosure reports now, for just over a decade, 

since the passage of the LDA. And as you well know we currently 

receive those filings twice a year, mid-February and again mid-August. I have a couple of statistics for you that are also in our written report. There are roughly 6,500 registrants who represent just 

over 20,000 clients. They employ almost 33,000 individuals, so it’s 

a big number. All told that means that our Office of Public Records, 

reviews about 45,000 documents a year. 

I’m also very proud that the lobbying community has been able 

to e-file with the Senate since the year 2000. And in fact since 

2001, lobbying reports and registrations as far back as 1998 have 

been posted on senate.gov for public access. Our role in public 

records with regard to the LDA is an administrative role. We do 

not have the enforcement authority. That belongs to the U.S. attorney of the District of Columbia. But since 2003 we have referred 

approximately 2,100 registrants to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Virtually all potential nonfiling and a handful for noncompliance. I’m 

particularly grateful for the second part of your question, because 

obviously no one is precisely sure at the moment where this journey ultimately takes us. And while we’re staying on top of the situation I may well be back to this subcommittee at the appropriate 

time to make a plea, first of all for time, because if there is substantial change that we undergo in the receipt of these documents 

we will need time to implement, and second of all the potential for 

additional resources exists. 

But I think with your permission if we could continue to stay in 

touch on this as this issue evolves we would be very grateful. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. As we get a clearer view of what the legislation might look like, we do want to stay in touch with your office 

in that regard. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you, that would be very helpful. 

STUDY OF SENATE STAFF PAY

Senator ALLARD. I just have a couple of other brief questions just 

for the record. Last year your office received funds to conduct a pay 

study of Senate employees, and can you tell me what the status of 

this study is? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. The study is in draft form. In fact we were talking about working groups, we have a working group coming together this afternoon with office administrators and chiefs of staff 

to review our first draft. So it is in process, and hopefully we’ll 

have the study out to the community here within the next month. 

Senator ALLARD. Good. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. I appreciate you asking the question too, if I 

might make one plea to those watching today. For the study to be 

effective and for it to produce the kind of results that the community is hoping for in terms of looking at hiring practices, benefits, 

salaries and so forth, we need as much participation as possible. 
140 

So thanks for mentioning it today, so I can make my plea to our 

Senate offices to help us with this survey. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ONLINE FILING

Senator ALLARD. And finally, if the Senate moves to online Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing, for campaign committees, 

what resources will your office need to make this conversion? 

Would you comment on that? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Yes sir. Like most everything else around here, 

we’re poised to act when the Senate acts, but I think on this one, 

just like with lobbying disclosure if there is substantial change 

coming our way, and if the Senate decides to move to e-filing, we 

will need time. A minimum of 6 months and possibly up to 1 year 

to be able to implement the program and there will be a need for 

additional resources. We’re still looking at those numbers and some 

are dependent on what hardware, what software needs we’ll have 

at that time. So again so I may be back hat in hand depending on 

those decisions made. 

Senator ALLARD. Your main demand would be for basically hardware to process the electronic filing? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Right. Hardware—— 

Senator ALLARD. But it seems to me you would need fewer people, because you wouldn’t have to have that data entry that you 

have. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Possibly, but we’re a pretty lean and mean operation in public records right now. I think our total staff there right 

now, is nine. And for example on lobbying disclosures there are 

three people on a daily basis dedicated to lobbying disclosure but 

when those reports start to hit in mid-February, mid-August, everybody helps out. So we’d be happy to take a look at that, as I 

said, we run a pretty lean and mean shop with folks who are capable of multitasking when the need arises. 

Senator ALLARD. Just asking you to look at it carefully. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. We shall. 

Senator ALLARD. I’m sure you will. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony. We don’t have 

any other questions from the subcommittee, and so we won’t tie up 

your time, I know you’re busy and I’ll call up the second panel. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you sir. 
(141) 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

STEPHEN AYERS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 

MARK WEISS, DIRECTOR, CAPITOL POWER PLANT 

WELCOMING REMARKS

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now we turn to the second panel. And 

before I make my formal remarks. I just want to recognize Mark 

Weiss who’s now our new Director of the Capitol Power Plant, and 

Mark, welcome. And now, we’ll turn to the Architect of the Capitol, 

to review the fiscal year 2007 budget request. Again welcome Mr. 

Hantman and Chief Operating Officer Stephen Ayers. Mr. Ayers 

was named Chief Operating Officer on Monday. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes sir. 

Senator ALLARD. You’ve been in the position on an acting basis 

for several months and I think you did a good job then. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET CONCERNS

Senator ALLARD. We congratulate you on this new position and 

wish you the best of luck. The AOC budget request totals $588 million, an increase of $164 million or 38 percent, over the current 

budget. This is the largest increase proposed by any Federal agency 

for the fiscal year 2007. While I commend the process your agency 

has developed, you prioritized major construction projects, clearly 

we need to do some paring back. There are a number of large 

projects in the budget, including $54 million for a new Library of 

Congress warehouse at Fort Meade, $20.6 million to complete the 

Capitol Visitor Center, $19 million for renovations to the infrastructure and the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and $15.9 million to replace the fire alarm system in the Hart Senate Office 

Building. Other large increases in the budget include $20 million 

for 91 new employees for the CVC operation, and a $10 million increase for information technology projects. 

SAFETY HAZARDS IN THE UTILITY TUNNELS

While these projects may be meritorious, and urgently needed, 

we will need to scrub each of them carefully and only fund the very 

highest priorities. In addition to budget issues, we’d like to discuss 

the complaint recently filed by the Office of Compliance for AOC’s 

failure to comply with the citation issued almost 6 years ago directing the AOC to correct serious safety hazards in the utility tunnels 

by 2002. This is the first time the Office of Compliance has issued 

a complaint, demonstrating the magnitude of this very serious 
142 

problem. The hazards include structural deficiencies that could 

lead to cave-ins, inadequate communication systems for workers in 

the tunnels, and inadequate means of egress. 

Finally we look forward to an update on projects that are currently underway as well as your efforts to address management 

challenges identified by the Government Accountability Office. Before I turn to you for your testimony Mr. Hantman, I want to ask 

the ranking member who just arrived if he has any comments. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman I apologize, we have an immigration bill markup in Judiciary, one floor above and I’ve spent time 

back and forth, and I’m sorry that I came in late for this. I want 

to get into the whole question about the safety aspects of the workplace at CVC and particularly this troubling report about the presence of asbestos in the tunnels and the danger that it creates for 

the employees that could be inhaling these lethal time bombs. I 

was not aware of how serious this was, or how long it had been 

pending for a resolution. I think it should have been taken care of 

years ago. I don’t know how many workers have been exposed, if 

any—I pray to God none. But if they have we’ve done them a great 

disservice. I thank you for your continuing oversight on this project 

and I will stay to ask some specific questions as time allows. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today’s second budget oversight hearing 

of fiscal year 2007 where we will hear testimony on the budget requests of the Secretary of the Senate and the Architect of the Capitol. 

I want to join the Chairman in welcoming today’s witnesses, Emily Reynolds, Secretary of the Senate, and Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol. 

Thanks to both of you for attending this morning. 

Ms. Reynolds, welcome back to the subcommittee for your fourth year as Secretary of the Senate. I think that you and your staff are doing a superb job and 

your budget request looks very straightforward. 

My staff and I greatly appreciate your guidance and leadership in the CVC decision-making progress. I realize that this has been a long, difficult, and at times frustrating process. Your dedication and determination are very admirable. 

I would appreciate any comments you might wish to include with regard to the 

CVC. 

Mr. Hantman, first of all I would like to acknowledge the outstanding day to day 

work of all of your employees. I think it’s easy to overlook the hard work that goes 

into the seamless running of this complex on a daily basis. This is a very well qualified and hard-working group of men and women and I appreciate their contribution 

to this complex. I think we should all extend our gratitude to them for their service. 

I would like to especially thank Carlos Elias, Don White, Barbara Wolanin, and 

Adrienne Powers, of your staff for their extra efforts on behalf of my staff in the 

Assistant Democratic Leader’s office. 

I would like to welcome Mr. Stephen Ayers, who has just been named as Chief 

Operating Officer at AOC. Mr. Ayers has been serving as Acting COO for quite some 

time and I’m glad to see that he will be serving in this capacity permanently. 

Mr. Hantman, I am encouraged by the overall progress your office is making in 

the area of worker safety. However I am deeply concerned about the situation involving the workers in the utility tunnels. The OSHA complaint recently filed by 

the Office of Compliance citing ‘‘potentially life threatening working conditions’’ in 

the utility tunnels that provide steam and chilled water throughout the Capitol complex presents a situation that must be addressed immediately. 

This situation was first brought to your attention in 2000. However, since then, 

it appears that very little has been done to address the very serious problems that 

exist in these tunnels. 

I am particularly troubled by the presence of asbestos in the tunnels. I have met 

with so many families who have been affected by asbestos-related illnesses in my 

work outside of this subcommittee. When these workers are inhaling these fibers 
143 

they are inhaling time bombs. I doubt the workers in these tunnels realize how serious this situation is. 

I hope you will update the Subcommittee on the steps you are taking to expedite 

the repair of these tunnels. Chairman Allard and I recently granted you the authority to reprogram $1.8 million for a portion of this work and I think that’s a step 

in the right direction. But this situation must be completely resolved as soon as possible so that these workers’ lives are not put in jeopardy by merely doing their jobs. 

Frankly, it should have been taken care of years ago. 

Last month in their report entitled, ‘‘Architect of the Capitol—Management Challenges Remain,’’—GAO noted that you have still not filled several leadership positions on your staff such as Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Congressional and External Relations, and Director of Planning and 

Project Management. I am glad that you recently filled the long-vacant position of 

Director of the Capitol Power Plant. However, I hope you will explain to the subcommittee when you plan to fill these other crucial positions. 

Finally, Mr. Hantman, Chairman Allard has already summarized your fiscal year 

2007 budget request so I won’t repeat the details. I do want to emphasize, however, 

the importance of prioritizing your requests. It troubles me to see a $54 million request for a Library of Congress construction project while very serious repair and 

maintenance problems exist around the complex. In a time of tight budget constraints such as this, new construction projects should have to take a back seat to 

important maintenance and repair needs that continue to lag on around this complex. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, let me now turn to the Architect of the 

Capitol, Mr. Hantman, we’re looking forward to your testimony. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN

Mr. HANTMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today, regarding our fiscal 

2007 budget request. My full statement has been submitted for the 

record, however I would like to give a brief overview of this request. Mr. Chairman in our role as stewards, the AOC is responsible for 15 million square feet of buildings, and more than 300 

acres of land. The Capitol complex is in reality a small city; however it’s a small city with an aging physical infrastructure, ever 

stricter codes and safety criteria to meet, as well as complex security requirements. 

Our buildings range from 25 to 200 years old. This means that 

there are many projects that require our attention to assure that 

these buildings continue to serve as functioning working environments and that we preserve these national treasures entrusted to 

our care for generations to come. 

Mr. Chairman we did not prepare this budget in a vacuum, unaware of the economic issues our country and this Congress are 

facing. I can appreciate the tough choices that this subcommittee 

must make as you hear from each legislative branch agency with 

its budget request. I can appreciate this because it’s difficult for me 

to rank the relative needs and benefits of necessary security and 

fire and life safety projects needed across the Capitol campus. 

How do I weigh the needs of the Library of Congress against 

those of the Capitol Police, or the Senate Sergeant at Arms against 

those of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House? The AOC 

is in the position of being a repository, if you will Mr. Chairman, 

for the needs of other agencies. They all have real needs that the 

AOC then becomes responsible for, and our budget request reflects 

these cumulative needs. 
144 

Our projects were prioritized through a progressive sequence of 

steps to determine which are most crucial. While it’s my responsibility as steward of these buildings to bring these needs and issues 

to Congress’ attention, I’m also aware that cuts will need to be 

made, as you mentioned Mr. Chairman, from that prioritized list. 

And I’m prepared to work with this subcommittee and other legislative branch agencies to determine which cuts to make so that we 

fit within the overall budget structure that this subcommittee ultimately allows. 

Mr. Chairman, we prioritize our projects based on a set of criteria that allows us to evaluate the merits of those projects. Facility condition assessments conducted across most of our jurisdictions 

measure the current condition of all facilities to assess how much 

work is necessary to maintain, or upgrade their conditions to acceptable levels, and to determine the timeframe for this work. We 

hope to initiate this process at the Library of Congress, contingent 

on the approval of our budget request, so that we fully understand 

their facility needs as well. We’d then be able to appropriately 

prioritize their project needs based on the same criteria used for 

other jurisdictions. 

In fact Mr. Chairman, the direction to perform condition assessments was given, and appropriately so, by this subcommittee back 

in 2002. And if I may quote from that language. 

‘‘Condition Assessments Master Plan. The Committee has provided an amount of 

$500,000 in the Capitol buildings appropriation and an amount of $1,100,000 in the 

Senate Office Building appropriation to initiate a comprehensive condition assessment of the Capitol complex. The assessment will be conducted in tandem with the 

development of a master plan for the Capitol complex and will include the collection 

of relevant information regarding buildings, inspection and equipment testing of 

properties and assets. Analysis and identification of deficiencies, identification of solutions, and costs, a forecast of future renewal requirements, and the development 

of long range comprehensive financial plans.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we’ve been working diligently to fulfill the directives and develop meaningful information which, in fact, GAO has 

reviewed. It’s important to note that according to the Government 

Accountability Office ‘‘While the FCAs—the facility condition assessments, have enabled AOC to develop a comprehensive plan for 

facilities, maintenance, and building renewal, the assessments 

have also documented the magnitude of AOC’s deferred maintenance and other projects. $2.6 billion over 9 years, and the challenge of funding these projects.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, GAO’s statement about ‘‘the challenge of funding 

these projects’’ is right on target. In a no-growth budget environment it’s, of course, particularly challenging. With all due respect, 

if these facility infrastructure needs are not addressed within an 

appropriate timeframe, our buildings will continue to age and deteriorate and the cost to correct these deficiencies will continue to escalate in future years. 

With regard to safety, it’s a priority at the AOC, therefore I’m 

pleased to report that for the fifth year in a row, the AOC’s injury 

and illness rate decreased. Last year we dropped to 5.65 from a 

high of 17.9 in fiscal year 2000. This is amazing because we’re coming down to the level of many white collar organizations in the 

Federal agencies as well as across the Government. 
145 

While I’m proud of these accomplishments, I will not be satisfied 

until we achieve our ultimate goal of a workplace free of injury and 

illness. This includes the steam tunnels that were the subject of 

the Office of Compliance’s complaint you discussed. Over the past 

several years, in the tunnels, we have rebuilt approximately 600 

feet of tunnel roof under Constitution Avenue, at a cost of approximately $5 million. I think you might remember, Mr. Chairman, 

that for over 1 year the street on Constitution Avenue was ripped 

up. We had to replace the roof of that tunnel, that’s one of the first 

items identified by our surveys that really needed to be taken care 

of up front. 

We also contracted for the inspection of 19 tunnel egress points, 

developed an egress improvements work plan, replaced the South 

Capitol Street steam line, for another $5.5 million and that included making structural repairs to manholes. 

We also implemented the in-house tunnel condition monitoring 

program last October which includes monitoring, recording and reviewing tunnel conditions daily. While this work was being planned 

and implemented, we have been working each year to remove 

spalls in areas where the concrete ceiling is damaged. We installed 

a leaky cable communication system in the major pathways in the 

tunnels. We currently have funding to install cable in the small 

stub pathways that come off the main tunnels. We are proceeding 

with that work and will get it done within the next months. We 

also provided our employees with confined space and asbestos 

awareness training. 

Mr. Chairman, we’ve requested $1.75 million in the 2007 budget 

to fund priority projects in the tunnels. We’ve received approvals 

on a $1.8 million reprogramming to continue additional structural 

repairs, asbestos abatement, and emergency egress repairs. Significant additional funding will be required and we’re working to determine the magnitude of that funding now. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as GAO noted in its February 2006 

report, we have made significant progress in our transformation 

into a more strategic organization. They state that the AOC has 

made progress in developing safety policies and establishing a safety training curriculum; has implemented a variety of communication methods to convey information to employees; has taken important initial steps to address the management and structure needed 

to establish a sound IT investment management process; has created a clearly defined, well documented and transparent process for 

evaluating and prioritizing projects. We’re committed to fulfilling 

our responsibilities over the long term, although that means we 

have to make tough choices, as you indicated Mr. Chairman, with 

regard to how we select and prioritize our projects. 

Our request for funds in 2007 is directly related to our responsibility as good stewards to maintain and preserve the facilities and 

national treasures in our care. I’m very proud of our 2,000 dedicated AOC professionals and I’m privileged to lead this remarkable 

organization. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s support in helping us 

achieve our goals, and once again thank you for this opportunity 
146 

to testify, and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding our fiscal year 2007 budget request. This request is structured to enable us to continue supporting the Legislative Branch by 

ensuring that the Capitol complex is safe and well maintained, our national treasures are preserved and protected, and we continue to provide high quality, efficient, 

and effective services to our customers. 

STEWARDSHIP AND PRIORITIZING PROJECTS

In our role as stewards, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for some 15 million square feet of buildings and more than 300 acres of land. 

The Capitol complex is, in reality, like a small city. However, it is a small city with 

an aging physical infrastructure. Our buildings range from 25 years old for the Library’s Madison Building, to more than 100 years old for the Russell, Cannon, and 

Jefferson buildings, to 200 years old for various parts of the Capitol Building. This 

means that there are many potential projects that call for our attention to ensure 

that these buildings continue to serve as functioning working environments for generations to come. 

While it is my responsibility to bring these issues to Congress’s attention, it is 

obvious that for practical considerations of construction and fiscal restraint, we 

must spread out the funding and physical workload over the course of multiple 

years. Therefore, we have prioritized these projects to determine which are more 

critical than others. In previous budget requests, my focus has been on ensuring 

that fire and life-safety deficiencies were corrected. With your support we have devoted significant resources toward protecting the people who work and visit Capitol 

Hill by continually working to improve the safety and security of our facilities. Protecting people is, and will continue to be, my top priority as evidenced by the number of fire and life-safety projects in our current budget request. 

While developing this budget, we reviewed many annual operating and capital 

project requests. We made difficult choices regarding funding AOC operations, new 

programs, and high priority capital projects, while at the same time balancing the 

day-to-day needs of those we serve. 

As a result, before we submitted our current request, we removed $44.3 million 

worth of important projects. The $588.3 million we have requested for fiscal year 

2007 ($509.4 million without items specific to the House) was submitted in our role 

as responsible stewards of our national treasures and in support of the needs of 

Congress, while balancing requests for new initiatives. 

It is important to note that we prioritize our projects based on a set of objective 

criteria that allow us to evaluate the relative merits of each of these projects. At 

Congress’s direction, starting in 2004, we conducted a series of Facility Condition 

Assessments (FCAs) in most of our jurisdictions. We hope to continue the process 

with the Library of Congress, contingent on the approval of our fiscal year 2007 

budget request. Our plan would be to survey the Library Buildings, in phases, beginning with the Madison Building. By completing FCAs for the Library of Congress 

buildings, we would fully understand their existing facility needs and would then 

be able to appropriately prioritize LOC projects with the same criteria used for 

other jurisdictions. These 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 when this work should occur. 

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its February 2006 report to Congress, ‘‘While the FCAs have enabled AOC to develop a comprehensive 

plan for facility maintenance and building renewal, the assessments have also documented the magnitude of AOC’s deferred maintenance and other projects—$2.6 billion over nine years—and the challenge of funding these projects.’’ What this $2.6 

billion breaks down into is a total of $886 million for deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects as identified in the FCAs (excluding the Library of Congress 

and the Supreme Court), with the remaining balance identified for capital improvements ($1.1 billion) and capital construction projects ($69 million). Mr. Chairman, 

GAO’s statement about ‘‘the challenge of funding these projects’’ is right on target. 

In a no-growth budget environment, it is particularly challenging. If these facility 

infrastructure needs are not met in appropriate timeframes, the conditions of our 
147 

buildings will continue to deteriorate and the cost to correct these facility maintenance deficiencies will continue to rise. 

A very recent example of capital renewal is demonstrated by the issuance of a 

complaint by the Office of Compliance (OOC) regarding the utility tunnels which 

provide steam and chilled water to the Capitol complex. We are taking a comprehensive approach to addressing the existing issues in the tunnels and are identifying 

a logical sequence to the necessary actions that will be taken. We have presented 

this plan to the OOC. Over the past several years we have completed these and 

other tasks in the utility tunnels: replaced the top of approximately 600 feet of the 

tunnel under Constitution Avenue at a cost of approximately $5 million; contracted 

for inspection of 19 tunnel egress points and developed an Egress Improvements 

Work Plan; replaced the South Capitol Street steam line and vault for approximately $5.5 million which includes making structural repairs to manholes. We have 

also implemented an in-house Tunnel Condition Monitoring Program in October 

2005 which includes monitoring, recording, and reviewing tunnel conditions daily; 

and we have been continually working to remove incipient spalls in areas where the 

concrete ceiling is damaged. 

We have requested $1.75 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget to fund priority 

projects involving the tunnels. We recently received approvals from the Senate and 

House on a $1.8 million reprogramming request to continue additional structural repairs, asbestos abatement, and emergency egress repairs in the tunnels. Additional 

significant funding will certainly be required and we are working to determine the 

magnitude of that funding now. 

OVERALL PLANNING PROCESS

In terms of our overall planning process, when all of the Facility Condition Assessments are completed, they are rolled into a five-year Capital Improvement Plan 

(CIP). The CIP, which became fully integrated in the fiscal year 2006 budget process, is used to evaluate projects based on an objective set of criteria, including: 

—Fire and life safety, code compliance, regulatory compliance, and statutory compliance. 

—Preservation of historic or legacy elements or features of buildings or entire historic structures as a reflection of the importance of stewardship responsibilities. 

—Impact on our mission, including client urgency. 

—Economics, including value, economic payback, life cycle cost considerations, 

and cost savings. 

—Physical security, including protection of facilities, Members, staff, and the general public. 

The projects are further evaluated based on necessary timeframes and on an evaluation of the conditions of the components and sub-materials. These condition ratings are characterized as one of the following: Adequate, sub-standard, and deficient. 

They are then further rated as to the urgency in accomplishing them as follows: 

—Priority 1—Immediate: Safety or code violations, as well as critical equipment 

that is either not functioning or close to failure. 

—Priority 2—High: Items need attention in the near term, as failure would impact the mission. Implemented within two to four years. 

—Priority 3—Medium: Implemented within five to seven years. 

—Priority 4—Low: Low priority projects related to aesthetics or minor performance issues. Implemented within 8 to 10 years. 

All projects with an ‘‘immediate’’ urgency are given priority over projects for which 

the urgency is ‘‘high’’ and so on. Additionally, ‘‘deferred maintenance’’ projects are 

generally considered a higher priority than ‘‘capital renewal.’’ Using the CIP process, once all of the FCAs are complete, we will be able to comparatively vet the 

projects to ensure that the most urgent get addressed most quickly. It is this multistep methodology that has been used to produce the fiscal year 2007 Capital Improvement Project Priority List that we submitted for your consideration. Those 

projects that can be accommodated within the budget level that is ultimately approved will move forward in fiscal year 2007. 

There will continue to be refinements to our project development process. However with implementation of the prioritization process, future program submissions 

will clearly be based first on the urgency of accomplishing the project, followed by 

consideration as to the type of project and its importance; with emphasis placed on 

deferred maintenance projects. These changes will result in an efficient and effective 

process and one that seeks to assure accuracy, responsible management of resources, and efficient development of programs. 
148 

Ultimately, the Capitol Complex Master Plan will ensure that we continue to be 

good stewards by establishing a framework that helps us prioritize the maintenance, 

renovation, and construction of Capitol Hill facilities over the next 5, 10, and 20 

years, while also spreading out the costs of that upkeep and construction. 

In addition to these new processes we have made changes to our organizational 

structure to improve how these projects are carried out. With Congress’s approval, 

we established the Project Management Division which is charged with consolidating project and construction management functions to provide ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ 

oversight of our projects. We have developed and implemented new processes that 

are designed to improve project tracking and reporting as well as to hold our consultants and contractors accountable for contract compliance. We recently reinstated 

our quarterly report to communicate the budget and schedule status of ongoing 

projects, the latest of which was delivered to the Senate and House Appropriations 

Committees in January and was well received by staff. 

CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET

Our fiscal year 2007 budget is comprised of two major components: $232 million 

for capital projects and $356.3 million for our annual operating budget. 

The capital projects budget request consists of $193.4 million for capital projects, 

$22.7 million for studies, designs, and condition assessments, and $15.9 million for 

minor construction. This budget was developed by prioritizing our project requirements; including those requested by our customers. Using this set of criteria, we 

were able to cut our initial list of 36 projects totaling more than $188 million to 

19 projects worth $143.7 million. However, the projects that did not make this current list have not gone away, nor has the need to fund them within reasonable timeframes. They will have to be reprioritized for another fiscal year where they will 

again compete with other significant, additional projects for available funding. 

The capital projects budget is grouped into the categories listed below (also shown 

in Attachment A). Note that these include a number of U.S Senate projects that 

have been designed to be completed in phases that we hope to continue next year. 

They include public restroom upgrades, modular furniture replacement, emergency 

generator installation, and fire alarm system upgrades. 

Deferred Maintenance—$30.4 million 

Maintenance or repair work on existing facilities and infrastructure that is past 

due and should not be deferred. This work will return a component or system to 

an acceptable condition. It will prevent physical depreciation or loss in the value of 

a building (this does not include preventative or routine maintenance). 

Projects include: 

—$19.43 million—Dirksen Senate Office Building; attic infrastructure improvements; 

—$4 million—Rayburn House Office Building; 480v Switchgear and Transformer 

Replacement; 

—$2.89 million—Thomas Jefferson Building; air handling unit replacement; and 

—$2.56 million—Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Buildings; elevator modernization projects. 

Capital Renewal—$24.3 million 

Correct unacceptable conditions caused by aged building components that will exceed their useful life within the next 10 years. If deferred for an inordinate amount 

of time, physical conditions may deteriorate and become a deferred maintenance 

issue. Capital renewal may be performed by overhaul, reconstruction, or replacement of constituent parts damaged or deteriorated to the point where they cannot 

be maintained. 

Projects include: 

—$15.95 million—Hart Senate Office Building; fire alarm system replacement; 

and 

—$8.34 million—Longworth House Office Building; kitchen exhaust system upgrade. 

Capital Improvement—$41.1 million 

Work done to a building that improves, enhances, or updates a building such as 

an addition, expansion, alteration, or replacement including work done to bring a 

building into compliance with current codes. 

Projects include: 

—$6.1 million—Russell Senate Office Building; emergency lighting and power upgrade; 

—$4.96 million—Rayburn House Office Building; emergency lighting upgrade; 
149 

—$3 million—Rayburn House Office Building; Phase I public restrooms upgrade; 

—$3.5 million—U.S. Capitol; security improvements in the House Chamber; and 

—$4.37 million—Thomas Jefferson Building; sprinkler system replacement. 

Capital Construction—$63.7 million 

Construction of a new building, facility, or other infrastructure where none previously existed. 

Projects include: 

—$54.2 million—Library of Congress Logistics Warehouse, Fort Meade; 

—$5.35 million—Alternate Computer Facility; vehicle storage facility; and 

—$4.1 million—U.S. Capitol Police; kiosks. 

Other Projects—$12.3 million 

Projects necessary to sustain and provide for Congressional and Legislative 

Branch Agency mission requirements that do not meet CIP criteria (construction 

projects greater than $250,000). 

Projects include: 

—$5 million—Alternate Computer Facility; land purchase; and 

—$2.1 million—Energy Survey of Congressional Buildings. 

Study, Design, and Condition Assessments—$22.7 million 

Activities necessary to plan for future projects. 

Projects include: 

—$1 million—James Madison Building; Facility Condition Assessment; 

—$3 million—FDA; fit out design study; 

—$750,000—Longworth House Office Building; fire alarm system upgrade; 

—$700,000—U.S. Capitol; electrical distribution system replacement design; and 

—$300,000—Cannon House Office Building; egress improvements study. 

Minor Construction—$15.9 million 

Minor construction funding for each jurisdiction that provides the flexibility for 

meeting unplanned project requirements generated by Committees, Members, staffs, 

and other AOC clients. 

Capitol Visitor Center—$21.6 million 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $20.6 million for CVC cost-to-complete. Also included is $1 million for start-up and operational costs associated with 

opening the CVC, including one-time costs such as furniture, equipment, computers 

and other necessary items. GAO’s ongoing analysis recommends adding $5 million 

to this amount to accommodate risk for further time extension and contingency for 

a total of $25.6 million for project cost-to-complete. 

While recognizing that the cumulative effect of the projects listed above represent 

a significant increase over fiscal year 2006 levels, these projects were considered our 

highest priorities. Although hard decisions were made to reduce the amount of our 

overall request, further cuts will likely be necessary to accommodate Federal budget 

limitations. Once again, this means that the projects that are eliminated will be deferred to successive years where they will again compete with other additional, significant projects for available funding. 

ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET

Our fiscal year 2007 annual operating budget request of $356.3 million reflects 

the addition of significant mandatory price level increases as well as new programs. 

The key drivers of this increase include: 

—Forty percent growth in utility costs over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels due 

to the recent deregulation of electric power and the increased cost of natural 

fuels following the devastation in the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina 

last summer. 

—Mandatory payroll increases and the addition of 91 FTEs to support daily operations and maintenance of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). 

—One-time CVC operations costs to purchase furniture, equipment, computers, 

and other necessary items. 

—Re-establishing Information Technology base resources and upgrading systems. 

—Leases and/or maintenance and operations of additional facilities. 

Utilities 

With regard to utilities, in an effort to offset cost increases, we have initiated a 

number of energy conservation measures. The first was to develop two Energy Savings Performance Contracts to upgrade equipment and save energy, at no additional 

cost to the government. Contractors are paid from proven energy savings. Other ef-
150 

forts involve developing a five-year plan to conduct energy audit surveys of all buildings on the Capitol campus, and publishing a brochure about saving energy 

throughout the Capitol complex to be distributed to Hill staff. 

In addition, the Capitol Power Plant staff has successfully completed a number 

of new maintenance projects to improve the performance, safety, and reliability of 

the boiler house and chilled water plants. As part of the West Refrigeration Plant 

Expansion Project, three new chillers became operable in November 2005. With the 

addition of this new equipment, we will experience greater efficiencies at the Plant 

and remove old mechanically and environmentally outdated machines. 

CVC Day-to-Day Operations 

In anticipation of the start-up and operational costs associated with the Capitol 

Visitor Center, our annual operating budget request includes funds to cover day-today operational and maintenance requirements as well as anticipated one-time costs 

such as furniture and equipment, computers, and other necessary items. Until such 

time as the Congress decides the issue of reporting relationships and governance of 

the CVC, we have included these costs in the AOC’s budget, including $10.6 million 

for payroll costs associated with the hiring of an additional 91 FTEs. 

Information Technology 

Another factor driving our operating budget request for fiscal year 2007 is an increase in investment in information technology. In our fiscal year 2006 budget request, we had cut the base resources in an attempt to constrain growth. Our intention was to fund information technology program shortfalls with lapses in payroll 

or other general and administrative areas, but that strategy has not worked well 

in the current fiscal environment due to rising costs of utilities and other expenses. 

Therefore, we are requesting $25.7 million to re-establish these base resources and 

to protect our IT systems by installing the latest technology security programs as 

required, preparing for future technological needs, and improving internal operations by replacing our project information system and upgrading the interface of 

our inventory control system to our financial system. 

The February 2006 GAO Report notes that ‘‘the agency has yet to establish and 

implement key information security practices, such as completing risk assessments 

on all of its major applications, documenting the identified risks in system security 

plans, and developing and implementing appropriate security controls to mitigate 

the risks—including developing contingency plans for all systems and applications. 

Until AOC completes and implements plans for improvement that are consistent 

with all our recommendations, it will be challenged in its ability to effectively use 

IT to optimize mission performance.’’ Updating our IT systems is a crucial part of 

achieving these tasks as outlined by GAO. 

SENATE OFFICE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS

A number of projects that we have requested funding for in next year’s budget 

for the Senate Office Buildings focuses on upgrading and replacing equipment that 

has exceeded its useful life expectancy or updating the historic buildings to meet 

modern requirements. For example, we are requesting $19.4 million to replace the 

air handling units in the Dirksen Building to improve building ventilation and to 

ensure the system’s reliability since the existing equipment is more than 40 years 

old and inefficient. We have also requested $6 million to upgrade emergency lighting 

in the Russell Building; $15 million to upgrade the fire alarm system in the Hart 

Building; and $5.8 million to install an emergency generator in the Russell Building 

to provide electrical power in an emergency. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER BUDGET

While most of our projects are worked on behind the scenes, underneath the East 

Front of the U.S. Capitol work is proceeding on the largest and most complex project 

in the history of the Capitol—the Capitol Visitor Center. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request would fund CVC operations, administration, facility maintenance, and 

construction cost-to-complete. The requested funding also would support the required activities and programs for transitional and start-up costs, exhibits, gift 

shops, telecommunications, and information technology infrastructure support. The 

Capitol Preservation Commission (CPC) supports the AOC’s request for operational 

funding as an interim measure until it is determined how, and by whom, the CVC 

will be operated. 

At our February hearing before this Subcommittee, we testified that we are now 

anticipating the CVC to be completed, including commissioning of life-safety systems, in March 2007, and available for a formal opening in April 2007. We reported 

the two key issues prompting that time extension are the delays in the delivery and 
151 

installation of interior stone due to a court injunction and a longer-than-expected 

duration for the fire and life-safety acceptance testing process. 

The project schedule extension has impacted the overall project cost-to-complete. 

Last fall, we concurred with GAO’s assessment that potential risks do exist and that 

additional funds would be necessary should these risks turn into reality; most notably if completion of the CVC occurred after December 2006, or if significant additional change orders were required. After meetings held the past several months 

with GAO and our construction manager, Gilbane, we anticipated that the delay, 

along with additional change orders and the potential for future project risks, could 

increase the project’s cost-to-complete by approximately $20.6 million. This is the 

amount we requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget. GAO’s ongoing review however, 

has resulted in a revised estimate of the cost-to-complete which adds approximately 

$5 million to this amount for risk, further time extension, and contingency. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, if you concur, we will work with you to effect this adjustment 

in order to ensure that there are adequate contingencies as we work to complete 

the CVC. 

Further information on the status of the project and a construction update is provided in my testimony specifically addressing the Capitol Visitor Center which will 

be discussed following this portion of the hearing (attached). 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Over the past 10 years, the AOC has been undergoing a transformation into a 

more strategic organization by implementing new policies and procedures, while at 

the same time continuing to meet our responsibilities as good stewards. I appreciate 

the efforts of AOC employees in balancing their heavy workloads with implementing 

these important changes to our organization. 

At this time, I would like to highlight some of the major AOC accomplishments 

of the past year. As GAO has noted in its February 2006 report, we have made significant progress in our transformation efforts, we continue to make progress, but 

the ‘‘transformation is a long-term effort.’’ 

Strategic Plan 

A key component in this effort has been the implementation of our Strategic Plan 

in 2003. The Plan has provided us with a blueprint for change by defining our mission, vision, and core values and created a structure of goals, and objectives through 

which we focus our efforts. As we begin the third year of this five-year plan, it continues to evolve. As part of our Strategic Performance Initiative, we are developing 

and implementing meaningful performance measures that will be linked to our daily 

activities and resource requirements. In the spirit of the Government Performance 

and Results Act, we have developed an ‘‘AOC dashboard’’ document which includes 

several high-level indicators to track performance for each of our strategic goals as 

well as a target goal for each indicator. Our senior leadership team meets monthly 

to monitor these indicators and goals to ensure that we meet the milestones we 

have set in our Performance Plan. 

Work Orders 

In fiscal year 2005, we completed nearly 34,200 work orders in the Senate Office 

Buildings. To date, we have completed more than 19,000 work orders in fiscal year 

2006. These are tasks that are requested of the AOC rather than programmed by 

our Agency and the work ranges from changing light bulbs, to fixing plumbing, to 

reconfiguring office space and painting. A number of other projects were completed 

during the past fiscal year. For example, we replaced the Rotunda balcony doors and 

installed high voltage switch gear in the Russell Office Building; we installed new 

modular walls and furniture in 10 Hart Building offices, and installed new wall 

sconces in the Dirksen Building. In addition, we completed the restoration of three 

Committee rooms in the Dirksen Building and one Committee room in the Russell 

Building as well as upgraded the audio and visual systems in these four rooms. 

Special Events 

The U.S. Capitol also was the site of a number of high-profile events including 

the Presidential Inaugural ceremony, which the AOC supported by building the 

platform, contracting for the audio system, installing the security fencing and crowd 

control features, as well as removing the snow that fell the night before the event. 

In October, we prepared the Capitol Building for another historic occasion, the lying 

in honor of Ms. Rosa Parks. 
152 

National Garden 

This fall, we look forward to the grand opening of the National Garden. This 

project is solely funded by private donations raised by the National Fund for the 

U.S. Botanic Garden. This not-for-profit corporation raised the private funds pursuant to Public Law 102–229. It the first public-private partnership project for the 

AOC. Last summer, we authorized the third option to be awarded under this contract; the construction of the First Ladies Water Garden. Construction on the National Garden began in spring 2004 on the base bid which consisted of the Rose Garden, Butterfly Garden, Lawn Terrace, and the Hornbeam Court. Option one, the 

landscaped garden path that meanders through the site, and option two, the Regional (Mid-Atlantic) Garden were subsequently awarded. Construction is scheduled 

to be completed next month and then landscaping and planting will occur on the 

site through the spring and summer. A public opening is scheduled for October. 

Decreased Injury and Illness Rate 

For the fifth year in a row, the AOC’s Injury and Illness rate decreased. We 

dropped to 5.65 cases per 100 employees in fiscal year 2005, from a high of 17.9 

cases per 100 employees in fiscal year 2000. We posted a four percent reduction in 

our rate while, at the same time, we faced the challenges of post-election office 

moves and an Inauguration, in addition to meeting our daily work demands. While 

I am proud of these accomplishments, I will not be satisfied until we achieve our 

ultimate goal of a workplace free of injury and illness. To make that goal a reality, 

we continue to educate and train our workforce and assure that our employees have 

the requisite equipment they need to do their jobs safely. We also took action and 

reduced injury and illness rates on the CVC construction site. The rate declined 

from 9.1 in 2003 and 12.2 in 2004, to 5.9 for the first 10 months of 2005—below 

the 2003 industry average of 6.1. 

Financial Statements 

We have also made great strides in generating more reliable annual financial 

statements. In 2005, we published our first accountability report and earned an unqualified opinion for the second consecutive year on the AOC balance sheet. Our Office of the Chief Financial Officer developed processes and procedures in anticipation of the first full audit of the full set of financial statements for fiscal year 2005. 

Employee Feedback Program and Action Plans 

Last year, as part of our strategic planning efforts, we developed a comprehensive 

employee feedback program. As part of that initiative, I invited AOC employees to 

participate in focus groups where they identified problems and suggested ways to 

help us solve them in order to improve the organization. Over the past year, we created a series of action plans that addressed the issues raised. Specifically, we: 

—Improved internal communication by sharing best practices in customer service 

AOC-wide. 

—Are establishing basic standards for written communication to make it easier 

for all employees to read and understand Agency documents. Published a Correspondence Manual and Style Guide for all written documents. 

—Are requiring regular staff meetings and providing training on how to conduct 

effective staff meetings. 

—Have established AOC-wide Town Hall Meetings. 

—Are including specific training to enhance communications skills in our Leadership Development Program (mandatory for all supervisors). 

—Explained and communicated the Agency mission in an easy to retain slogan: 

Serving Congress with a Commitment to Excellence. 

—Improved transparency by publishing and explaining approved organization 

charts and promoting consistency and fairness in workforce classification. 

—Issued AOC policies on Employee Feedback, Performance Evaluation, and 

Awards and improved general policy knowledge by instituting easy to read onepage summaries explaining these policies. 

—Improved Internal Service Providers’ customer orientation, making them more 

accessible. 

Performance Metrics 

Finally, we continue to regularly collect, track, and manage operational performance metrics that are linked to our Strategic Plan goals through a variety of tools 

and processes. These tools not only help improve communication among AOC managers and staff, but have also led to process improvements in several areas. In addition, it has helped to improve our communication and outreach to Congressional 

leadership and our oversight committees regarding our performance. We continue 
153 

to work with Congress and GAO to further identify areas for improvement while 

balancing our long-term goals and our day-to-day responsibilities. 

I want to thank the Committee for its support without which we could not have 

undertaken these efforts and completed many critical projects, continued to provide 

exemplary services, and assured continuity of operations at the Capitol, in the Senate Office Buildings, and throughout the Capitol complex. 

CONCLUSION

The AOC is dedicated to serving Congress with a commitment to excellence. 

In its February 2006 report to Congress, the GAO stated that the ‘‘AOC has been 

working for several years to transform itself into a more strategic and accountable 

organization and to improve worker safety. This transformation is a long-term effort 

that involves a fundamental change in AOC’s culture.’’ It also noted that ‘‘AOC operates in a challenging environment: the agency must preserve and modernize these 

high-profile, historic buildings while meeting the needs of Congress—including its 

leadership, committees, individual members, and staffs—and the visiting public.’’ 

Since the implementation of our Strategic Plan, GAO writes that: 

—‘‘To strengthen human capital management, AOC had, among other things, 

linked its employee evaluation system to mission-critical goals, established 

monthly management meetings to share and assess data from employee relations offices, and identified a number of ways to collect, report, and analyze 

workforce data.’’ 

—‘‘To improve worker safety, AOC has made progress in developing safety policies, implementing a system to track investigations of incidents and follow up, 

completing a job hazard analysis process to report hazards, and establishing a 

safety-training curriculum that fully supports the goals of the safety policies.’’ 

—‘‘To further improve financial management, AOC is developing an agencywide 

internal control framework and a cost accounting system, which are essential 

to improving accountability across all AOC operations.’’ 

—‘‘To further improve communication with employees, AOC has implemented a 

variety of communication methods to convey information to employees, including a weekly newsletter on project updates, policy announcements, management 

and communication tips, and other agencywide messages.’’ 

—‘‘The AOC recycling program has undergone significant expansion over the past 

five years, while at the same time becoming more efficient. The program has 

also been expanded by increasing the number of locations at which recycling is 

taking place.’’ 

—‘‘AOC has also taken important initial steps to address the management and 

structure needed to establish a sound IT investment management process, such 

as assigning roles, responsibilities, and the authority needed to manage its IT 

investment portfolio.’’ 

—‘‘To improve project management, AOC created a clearly defined, well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and prioritizing projects.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, my team and I are committed to fulfilling our responsibilities over 

the long-term, although that it means, at times, we have to make tough choices with 

regard to how we prioritize our projects or how we manage our clients’ expectations. 

Our request for funds for fiscal year 2007 is in direct response to our responsibility 

as good stewards to maintain and preserve the facilities and national treasures 

under our care. In addition, we continue to strive to achieve a high level of safety, 

security, preservation, and cleanliness expected across the Capitol complex. 

I am very proud of the dedicated professionals who make up the AOC team and 

I am privileged to lead this remarkable organization. I greatly appreciate the Committee’s support in helping us achieve our goals. 
154 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET INCREASE

Senator ALLARD. If it’s all right, Senator Durbin, I’m going to run 

the time clock on this, I’ll take 5 minutes and then you can have 

5 minutes and I’ll do my best to abide by that. 

Mr. Hantman, I guess I’ve had a couple of shocks this morning. 

The first one was somewhat expected, that’s the huge increase in 

your budget request. How do you justify an increase of this magnitude? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my statement, I 

really didn’t prepare this budget in a vacuum. I recognized the difficult financial conditions that the entire Government has. When I 

quoted the direction that I received from this subcommittee several 

years ago, to take a look at the condition assessments, I really had 

to evaluate what my role was as steward of these buildings and 

these treasures here on Capitol Hill. What we did is we went 

through a prioritization process which originally included something like 36 projects or so. We prioritized them in accordance with 

the methodology that I included in my testimony here. The methodology is an overall planning process that takes into account fire and 

life safety codes, preservation of historic and legacy elements, impact on our mission, including client urgency, economics, and physical security. All of these issues were evaluated. We then looked 

into the issue of rating these projects, whether the condition of 

these projects and the areas that they were meant to serve ‘‘adequate’’, ‘‘substandard’’ or ‘‘deficient’’. We then further rated them as 

to urgency and accomplishing them in terms of immediate, high, 
155 

medium, et cetera. In coming up with the list of 19 projects that 

survived that list of 36, Mr. Chairman, we eliminated some $43 

million worth of projects. What we wanted to do was actually discuss the criteria, the methodology we went through to select these 

projects. 

I recognize that we have to cut back on the numbers that we 

have over here. But in the spirit of the report that this subcommittee directed us to do years ago, to do the assessments; I 

thought it was important to bring forward to the subcommittee, the 

nature, the magnitude of the issues that we have building up here 

on Capitol Hill. 

The more projects we put off, the more projects we have to plan 

for in future budgets. And there are more projects that keep coming up in terms of the age of the infrastructure and the buildings 

we have here. 

So I don’t presume, Mr. Chairman, to ask more than other Federal agencies. I don’t presume to go over whatever budget cap is 

realistic in this. I just wanted to make the point that basically, if 

we’re going to be good stewards, and fulfill, in fact, the mission 

that this subcommittee gave us years ago, that we bring to the attention of the Congress what needs to be done and work together 

to find out how best to do this, how to spread it out over the years, 

and make sure that these facilities are good for future generations 

and that the fire and life safety standards are in fact met. 

UTILITY TUNNEL CONDITIONS

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate you laying this all out for us. We’re 

just going to have to do some tough priority setting as we move forward in this subcommittee. 

The other shock I had was the condition of the utility tunnels. 

I have some pictures here that were taken, apparently the inside 

of the tunnel in some areas, and I’m shocked at the amount of 

crumbling of the structure and the rusting that’s going on in some 

of the old pipes. It seems to me we really have to get after this. 

Why isn’t this your highest priority? And can you give us a better 

idea of what we may be looking at, are we tearing up streets? I’m 

concerned about safety considerations, when we have cement walls 

that are crumbling, asbestos is okay, as long as it’s not in a state 

where it’s moving, and it’s moving. Walls are crumbling. I’m worried about the potential of risk to the workers and everyone that 

happen to use that tunnel. I wish you’d comment on that please. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Clearly that is an issue 

and there’s no doubt that more work is necessary within the tunnels. When we first started looking at this, and this was well before 

the citation back in the year 2000. We recognized that there were 

two issues that we needed to deal with. One of them was the immediate issue of the condition of the tunnel and the workmen who go 

down there on a daily basis to maintain the condition. We recognized that it was a long-term solution, that we could not rip up all 

the streets around the Capitol complex, we have some 12,000 lineal 

feet of tunnel here. And, in fact, as I indicated before 600 feet of 

that was ripped up on Constitution Avenue as the first priority 

that was identified in this project because of not only the needs in 

the tunnel itself, but also because of the traffic that goes on top of 
156 

that tunnel. Every time we look at the major issues, we recognize 

that there’s an awful lot of inconvenience that will occur to the 

Congress, to the Capitol, to our community as we rip up streets. 

Part of the $1.8 million we have in the reprogramming will be 

going toward a design for the next section which was almost in as 

bad shape as the section under Constitution Avenue, in front of the 

Senate Office buildings. This is on Second Street, to the south of 

the Madison Library of Congress office building. We’re doing a 

study on it. We fully expect that we’re going to have disruptions, 

major concerns from the community, from ourselves. We don’t control the streets under which our steam lines run over there. And 

that would be our next focus as identified in the original report. 

But while we recognize that the major ripping up of streets where 

we’ve got so many going on right now, as you know, East Capitol 

Street, we have this new steam tunnel going in for the Capitol Visitor Center, on South Capitol Street, we ripped it up for other 

steam and infrastructure utility lines. We’re nearing the completion of that, we’re still doing it on E Street in front of the Power 

Plant. How much construction fatigue can the Congress take? How 

much disruption can the community take at one time? That’s what 

we have to work out with respect to the major projects. And we 

fully expect as we get through our studies on this next section of 

the ‘‘R’’ tunnel, as it’s called, past the Madison Building, will cost 

us millions of dollars and we’ll have to be talking to the subcommittee about how that gets funded. 

But the immediate priority was the Constitution Avenue tunnel, 

while these things were being phased over multiple years. The plan 

was never to finish all of this work by the year 2002. Past budget 

requests will indicate that we showed tens of millions of dollars in 

out-years to solve all of these problems. Our immediate problem 

was to make it as safe as we could for the people who work there 

on a day-to-day basis. 

So as we went through the years, each—we installed a leaky 

cable communication system in the tunnels, through the main tunnel system as I indicated before. By this summer, we should have 

the small stub tunnels, leading from those main communication cables to each building, taken care of as well. We implemented emergency shoring and repairs to the tunnels and we’ve done so every 

year since the year 2000 when this came about. 

So people have been going into those tunnels, looking out for 

spalls, taking care of those spalls, so that it is less dangerous for 

the people who go in there. We’ve also initiated three person work 

teams where one person would stay outside of the manhole and two 

people using their radio communications, would go inside the manhole and they would be able to talk about things. I met with the 

tunnel crew last week Mr. Chairman, listened to all of the issues 

that they had, to the concerns that they had, and the highest priorities they saw which basically amounted to the ‘‘Y’’ tunnel, which 

is where a lot of our focus and studies are going into at this point 

as well. 

So we have been trying to move forward on the day-to-day life 

safety while we’re planning the long term projects which require 

greater funding and have a greater impact on the community. 
157 

Senator ALLARD. Let me call on my colleague, Senator Durbin. 

I know he is shocked as I am at the condition of those tunnels and 

I think he’s got some questions he wants to ask in that regard. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. Mr. Hantman, this is 

unprecedented is it not, that the Office of Compliance would file a 

complaint against the Architect’s Office? 

Mr. HANTMAN. That’s my understanding, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. And it’s been noted now for 6 years or more 

that there were problems, hazards and dangers to employees in 

these tunnels, is that not true? 

Mr. HANTMAN. That is true, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. I understand budgets because I’ve served on the 

Appropriations Committee on the House and Senate, and been on 

this subcommittee for some time. But I cannot believe that if you 

felt that this was a life threatening situation and came to Congress 

that we wouldn’t have responded. Did you feel this was a life 

threatening situation? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We felt that there was certainly conditions down 

there that needed to be ameliorated so that it would not be a life 

safety situation. 

Senator DURBIN. I think you said yes, that you felt it was a life 

threatening situation. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Certainly with spalling concrete coming off, that 

could be certainly a life safety situation, yes. 

Senator DURBIN. And I have to ask you why you didn’t make this 

plea to Congress, saying the lives of workman are at stake here. 

When I look at this, it’s a lengthy survey done by the Office of 

Compliance, the conclusions at one part say, ‘‘neither the conditions, nor the protective measures for either asbestos or heat stress 

have improved for tunnel shop employees between the OOC report 

of August 24, 1999 and the inspection made for this report.’’ And 

they have cited in here as I’m sure you’ve read ample evidence that 

the workers whether they knew it or not, were exposed to asbestos 

hazard during 5 or 6 years while they were working in these conditions. Were you aware of that exposure? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We have worked in—we have five tunnels sir. 

One of them is the ‘‘V’’ tunnel for instance. We completed abating 

the asbestos in that tunnel last year. We have money in the project 

loop right now, in procurement for the ‘‘B’’ tunnel to abate the— 

we are—one of the comments that the chairman made before in 

terms of encapsulating asbestos, we recognize that we have asbestos in all of our buildings and all of our tunnels around the campus. As long as it’s encapsulated and safe we will be replacing that 

as we can, as we go down the road with various projects. 

Most of these tunnels have had encapsulated work accomplished. 

The ‘‘B’’ tunnel, for instance, had new jacketing put on it. That 

jacketing is now wearing out. We have a $200,000 project to abate 

the work in that tunnel. 
158 

EMPLOYEE SAFETY IN THE TUNNELS

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Hantman, did you warn the workers that 

they were going to expose themselves to inhalation of asbestos if 

they worked in the tunnels that were not protected? 

Mr. HANTMAN. The workers were aware of these asbestos issues. 

We worked to repair problems when they saw an asbestos issue, or 

we had the construction management division go in to inspect, we 

would go in and repair those particular sections and make sure 

that they were encapsulated. 

Senator DURBIN. Did the workers wear any protective breathing 

device working around this asbestos? 

Mr. HANTMAN. They are now, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. When did that start? 

Mr. HANTMAN. This is just starting. 

Senator DURBIN. Why did we wait so long to protect these workers? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We were working in those tunnels, we had constant inspections going on in those tunnels. We recognized that we 

needed to do full tunnel work as we did on Constitution Avenue to 

make sure that—and as we did on the ‘‘V’’ tunnel that we can take 

care of it as a total project while we were encapsulating segments 

as we went along. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Hantman, I would have to tell you that perhaps I have a heightened interest in this with the debate we just 

went through on the asbestos issue. And having met scores of widows and widowers of people suffering—who suffered from mesothelioma and asbestosis. There’s not a single one of us in this room 

who knows for sure that we haven’t been exposed to asbestos that 

will kill us. In this circumstance, we knew that there was asbestos, 

we knew that it was a hazard to workers, and literally waited 

years before we provided safety devices for these workers to protect 

them. How could we possibly explain that to the workers or their 

families? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We had ongoing inspections but clearly they were 

not adequate. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Well that’s cold comfort. I appreciate your admission, but I think it tells that we have done a great disservice 

to these workers and their families. And I hope of all the priorities 

which we face on Capitol Hill, that the first priority will be the 

safety of the men and women who work here and visit here. And 

if that is the case, I want to say to you point blank. If you do not 

come forward with requests for life safety measures and protective 

devices to protect these workers then you’re not doing your duty. 

You need to call on us, and if we fail then it’s on our shoulders 

but knowing this for 5 or 6 years, and not responding to it, and exposing workers to these potential life threatening situations that’s 

entirely unacceptable. And to think that it would happen on Capitol Hill, the seat of our Government, the symbol of who we are as 

a people, makes it even worse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Well I’d like to agree with Senator Durbin on 

his comments. I do think that we have to get moving quickly on 

this, we need to get it taken care of. I understand your concerns 

about disrupting traffic, part of it’s on Constitution Avenue. But I 
159 

think that we need to get a plan in place quickly as to how we can 

deal with this, and somehow or other find the resources to begin 

to get this situation rectified as much as possible, and get the city 

to understand that this is a serious problem and it needs to be 

dealt with. I know it’s going to create some travel inconveniences, 

but I just think it has to be done. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman if I might add to that. Mr. 

Hantman said how much construction fatigue can Congress take, 

he went onto talk about how much disruption of traffic can the 

community take. Well I’m prepared to face both of those challenges 

but I’m not prepared to face the families of these workers and tell 

them we didn’t do everything humanly possible to protect them in 

the workplace. 

TUNNEL REPAIR PLANS

Mr. HANTMAN. We have requested $1.75 million in this budget 

to do further studies and work on that, in addition to the $1.8 million that we’ve recently reprogrammed. We will certainly get back 

to you in terms of what those studies are showing and the priorities in terms of those dollars. 

Senator ALLARD. I don’t know what kind of time line you were 

thinking about, but we need to expedite this. I hope that you can 

come back with an expedited plan. Give us a better idea of what 

this total thing is going to cost, so we can deal with it, and begin 

to plan for it. We’ve got a lot of things that are on that list, but 

in my view this needs to be toward the top of the list. We need to 

somehow begin to address it right away. You now have the feeling 

of this subcommittee that we think this is important, and we need 

to expedite it. I hope that you would look at the budget request 

that you’ve made and see what we can do now to begin to address 

these problems. I agree with Senator Durbin, the traffic and inconvenience to Members of Congress and our staff, that’s a minor 

issue relative to the seriousness of what we have here. We need to 

deal with it. 

TRACKING OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE CITATIONS

Are you keeping a list of possible problems that are erupting so 

that we don’t get to this problem in some future time? Where the 

Office of Compliance has pointed out a problem or potential problem, is it being catalogued so that we can see what might be coming down the pike so that we can begin to meet these challenges 

as they face the committee? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do meet regularly with the 

Office of Compliance and they have over the years, since 1999, 

issued a variety of citations. We work to abate those and request 

funding as necessary to abate those. We meet with them on a regular basis to update them on the status of the abatement of those 

citations. 

CAPITAL PROJECTS AND THE LIBRARY LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE

PRIORITIZATION

Senator ALLARD. Let me move onto capital projects. Your budget includes 19 major capital projects, totaling about $143.7 million. 
160 

Could you describe the process, referred to as the line item construction program, you went through to come with this list of 

projects? 

The projects are ranked based on their urgency and the type of 

project, now how is a library storage facility ranked number nine 

on this list? 

Mr. HANTMAN. As I indicated Mr. Chairman, when we originally 

started looking at projects, and the importance and the ranking on 

the list, we had some 36 projects there. The library logistics warehouse was number 35 on that list, because we ranked it as a high 

need, but not an immediate need. What happens when you get to 

all of the fire and life safety, the preservation, the economics, the 

physical security issues and you rank that, and you look at the current condition of various projects, you’ll note that’s one of the few 

projects on our request which is a new project as opposed to something that needs to be repaired and maintained. Originally that 

was not ranked high on the list, it was number 35 as opposed to 

where it is right now, in number 9. The Librarian expressed very 

strong need and concern that it was an ‘‘immediate’’ priority. We 

have not done facility condition assessments for the Library as of 

yet. We hope to get that funding in here so we can actually do the 

type of analysis we talked about before. So in terms of the final 

overview, once you go through all the fire and life safety, the physical security, the deficiencies, and things like that, the urgency of 

the project is the element that is the last overlay on that. So our 

priority was originally ‘‘high’’, the Librarian indicated that was an 

‘‘immediate’’ project, very important. And so it was on that basis 

that it was raised to—it’s the lowest of the ‘‘immediate’’ projects on 

our list which is number nine. We have eight ‘‘immediate’’ above 

it, all the rest below it are ‘‘high’’. 

If it had not been ranked as ‘‘immediate’’ at the Librarian’s request it would have been number 35 in the project list and would 

not have been requested. 

DIRKSEN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Senator ALLARD. The Dirksen infrastructure improvements total 

somewhere about $19.4 million, can you describe these improvements and tell us where the project can be broken down into 

phases so as to lessen the price tag in fiscal year 2007. 

Mr. HANTMAN. This again Mr. Chairman, is an important 

project. Basically what we’re looking at over here, is we think that 

this project could be phased in multiple years. As far as the Dirksen project is concerned, the current situation is that it’s calling for 

the replacement of air handling units in the Dirksen Office Building. They’re an integrated piece of equipment, they consist of fans, 

heating units, coils, et cetera, and we currently have 21 air handling units serving the building right now. There are 12 of them 

on the seventh floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building that 

have to be replaced. These are air handlers that are over 40 years 

old. They’ve exceeded their useful life, and they’re very inefficient. 

So this project would replace those 12 air handler units with new 

units that have replaceable filters, steam preheat coils, clean steam 

humidifiers, variable frequency drive motors, direct digital control 

systems. The work would include reconnecting the main units, et 
161 

cetera. If not funded, the building ventilation will gradually worsen 

and the units will fail in the near future. Just when in the near 

future, we wouldn’t know exactly but in terms of good process and 

procedure, this could happen. 

We’ve taken a look at this project Mr. Chairman, and we think 

it could be phased by stack especially. Specifically on the north 

stack, there’s a center stack, and a south stack in the Dirksen 

Building. Phasing would require increased project coordination, 

some increased administrative costs, and contractor overhead, 

things like this. But we think it could be phased into three pieces. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you have an idea about how that would affect the cost of the project? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Yes, in the—we think that for this first year, we 

could do the south wing for three air handling units for $6.5 million, next year we could do the center wing for $8.4 million, and 

the north wing in the following year for some $6 million. This 

would add about a $1.5 million in additional costs to the project, 

but it could be spread out over 3 years. 

CONSTRUCTION OVERHEAD COSTS

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. The Architect of the Capitol’s construction overhead costs include more than 10 percent for contract 

administration and construction management. Other agencies such 

as the Corps of Engineers and the naval facilities engineering command include costs in the range of 6 to 8 percent. What do AOC’s 

overhead costs support and why are your overhead costs higher 

than these other ones mentioned? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We can certainly respond to the record for that 

if we could Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. If you would please. 

[The information follows:] 

The AOC’s overhead costs consists of the following: 

Construction Contingency Cost.—This is added to the total Estimated Construction Contract Cost (ECCC) to allow for change orders. The percentage typically 

ranges between 5 percent to 10 percent for new construction and 10 percent to 15 

percent for renovation work. The higher contingency percentage for renovation work 

is due to the greater likelihood that during renovation unknown or unforeseen conditions may be encountered. 

Implementation Cost.—These are administrative costs added to the Estimated 

Construction Project Cost (the accumulated ECCC plus Contingency) to support the 

AOC’s costs during project execution. These include: (1) Construction Administration, (2.5 percent)—this is usually a contract with the A/E firm performing the design, or the A/E firm who performed the design, to account for shop drawing submittal reviews, answering Requests for Information (RFIs), and any additional technical services related to interpretation of the drawings and specifications during 

construction, and the percentage applied is an industry-accepted standard; (2) AOC 

Construction Management, (8 percent)—this amount is set aside to pay for Term 

AOC employees hired as Construction Managers, who are the COTRs during construction, and Construction Inspectors, who provide daily quality assurance during 

construction execution; (3) Government Testing, Inspection and Quality Control, (2.5 

percent)—this amount is provided to allow for independent testing, inspections services, or quality control services that may be required. Such instances include specialized testing or field verification that specified design parameters have been met, 

and independent validation of information necessary to resolve contractor disputes. 

Project Management Cost.—This amount provides for professional associate (contract) or temporary in-house project management staff when execution of a specific 

project or group of projects cannot be met with internal resources. At the present 

time, temporary project management staff are funded by the LOC Fort Meade 

projects to provide for overall program execution at that location. Previously, this 
162 

allocation was used to execute portions of the Emergency Response Fund projects 

because at that time there was an inadequate dedicated project management staff 

to support that program. This percentage—currently set at 5 percent—was inadvertently applied to some of the fiscal year 2007 project requests. Specific estimating 

guidance has since been issued to clarify that it is to be applied only under the circumstances noted above. 

The AOC has not analyzed other agency overhead cost structures. The AOC is undertaking a series of processes to determine how its overhead costs are spent, and 

over time will be in a much better position to support its actual cost requirements 

based on financial history matched to project performance. In addition, the Government Accountability Office has offered to provide the AOC with technical advice in 

this specific area. 

WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT PROJECT

Senator ALLARD. On the west refrigeration plant, this $100 million project is behind schedule by 5 or 6 months, and over budget. 

What is the current schedule for completion? 

Mr. HANTMAN. The current schedule is by July of this year, we 

should have the units up and running, with a combination of controls, as well as manual controls so that we could be producing the 

chilled water that we need throughout the campus. By the end of 

the year all those controls should be in place, so that the manual 

operation would no longer be needed. 

Senator ALLARD. Can you assure us that no additional funds are 

going to be needed? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We are reprogramming dollars in this year’s budget as you know Mr. Chairman, to the tune of about $4.7 million. The main reason that these funds were needed is that there 

were two unforeseen conditions at the Power Plant. One of them 

was the extent of the contaminated soil under the existing coal 

pile. We needed to remediate that. Another was a gas main that 

was on Virginia Avenue in the way of the relocated sewer line that 

we had to take care of. With those two projects, that basically took 

the full reprogramming value and we would have been pretty much 

on budget, without having to reprogram, without those two elements. 

So, yes, we’re expecting that this reprogramming should be able 

to get us to home base. 

WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT PROJECT CHALLENGES

Senator ALLARD. What are the biggest challenges you’ve confronted with a project, and what are some lessons learned? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Well, the two project elements that I mentioned 

were the biggest challenges, and that is true Mr. Chairman, of any 

project we do here on Capitol Hill. The documentation is just not 

very good in terms of existing drawings and all. That was certainly 

the case with the gas line on Virginia Avenue. It wasn’t shown in 

the right place, in terms of where it really was. Another challenge 

that we faced on the Power Plant, was the reason that project was 

initiated in the first place. This goes back to the type of issues that 

we have with facility conditions throughout the campus. How do 

you know something’s going to fail? Do you replace a roof before 

it fails, or do you do it because its life expectancy has really been 

achieved. So when we looked at the east refrigeration plant, it actually has EPA, noncompliant elements in it. We wanted to replace 

it. It was over 40 years old. It wasn’t performing efficiently. We 
163 

had planned on essentially using it long enough to be able to take 

down the existing west refrigeration plant units, put them online, 

hook them up and have the east plant run through the winter so 

that we could do that, and the full load would be on that. Unfortunately, we had two of those units fail. Their life expectancy certainly was there, we knew that was happening, and the same issue 

is, when will something fail? 

So we had to essentially, while the west refrigeration plant was 

up and running, make those changes. So that was something that 

cost us time and it cost us money, Mr. Chairman. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTS ON POWER PLANT

STAFFING

Senator ALLARD. Now, GAO recently reported that the Architect 

of the Capitol hasn’t made sufficient progress in planning to staff 

the modernized Power Plant efficiently and ensure plant personnel 

are trained to operate it safely. According to the GAO, the plant 

has about twice as many employees as are needed for efficient operation and has since at least 1996. What are your plans for rightsizing the Power Plant while ensuring equity to all employees? 

Mr. HANTMAN. We have a consultant—Ross is doing a detailed 

functional analysis, regarding staffing reductions. We think they 

are possible. We are at the process, Mr. Chairman, we don’t have 

the new equipment up and all the controls in place at this point 

in time. So we need to take a look at training the people in—on 

our staff, for automation of the plant, and cross train those people 

to make sure that they can do multiple jobs efficiently. We believe 

this can happen, once we have the new plant online. We are concurrently working on doing training right now, so that we can essentially right size and cross train people to bring it more in line 

with the ultimate staffing that’s necessary. And our new director 

certainly will have his eyes and ears on that and make sure that 

we do it the right way. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGET

Senator ALLARD. You’ve been listening to some of my concerns in 

the past hearings on performance-based budgets and I understand 

you’re taking some action to develop a performance-based budget 

to measure outcomes. I’d like to know how you’re coming along on 

that initiative? 

Mr. AYERS. Sure, thank you Mr. Chairman. We do have several 

strategic performance initiatives underway, and performance-based 

budgeting is one of them. If I could just step back for a moment 

though. All of these refer back to our strategic plan that we developed in 2003. That strategic plan is centered around four goal 

areas: facilities management, project management, human capital, 

and organizational excellence. And to implement that plan, it’s accompanied by a performance plan that includes 16 objectives, 175 

specific milestones, as well as over 300 individual activities necessary to achieve those goals. In addition to simply measuring our 

progress against achieving those milestones, we’ve developed a series of performance indicators that enable us to track the health of 

the organization on an ongoing basis. We call this our dashboard. 

We’ve developed some 25 different performance metrics, that we re-
164 

view on a monthly basis, myself and Mr. Hantman, with a team 

of senior managers. 

To take that strategic plan to the next level, we believe requires 

the implementation of a cost accounting system as well as a performance-based budgeting system, those—both of those processes 

are underway now. We believe that’s a year long effort, we’ve recently added staff to our cost accounting division to begin the full 

implementation of that program and we look forward to presenting 

to you in 2008 our first performance-based budget. 

INTERNAL CONTROLS IMPLEMENTATION

Senator ALLARD. I’m looking forward to that, and thank you for 

your efforts. According to GAO, it’s critical the Architect of the 

Capitol develop strong internal controls, including a reliable cost 

accounting system and sound procurement practices, can you tell 

us what you’ve done in this area, and identify the resources you’ve 

requested in your budget to address these needs. 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly Mr. Chairman, thank you. We have begun 

the roll out of a comprehensive internal controls program. This has 

been, in fact, in our strategic plan since 2003. The first phase of 

that, as we’ve selected three of the—what we feel most important 

functions of our organization. Our procure to pay, or how we purchase materials, as well as our payroll and project management 

systems. As part of this internal controls program, we’ll take each 

of those systems and break them down to each of their individual 

components, review them to determine what specific financial and 

managerial controls need to be in place to be able to achieve the 

end result. We’re well in process on the first three of those. Once 

those are complete, we’ll bring in another handful of our business 

processes and run them through the same process. Ultimately we’ll 

have gone through all of our strategic business processes; run them 

all through this program to develop a sound internal controls program. We do have two FTEs requested in our 2007 budget to enable us to continue that, and expand that internal controls as well 

as the cost accounting program. 

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

Senator ALLARD. Your contract management has been subject to 

some criticism. What are you doing to try and improve it? 

Mr. AYERS. I think one of the most important initiatives we’ve 

undertaken, is the development of a comprehensive core competency program, both for our project managers as well as for our 

procurement employees. That’s a terrific program, and our employees are run through an appropriations law class, a contract management class, I think that’s been our most important initiative in 

that area. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER SELECTION

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Let me ask you Mr. Hantman, about the 

position of Chief Financial Officer. This seems to me like a critical 

position to get filled. How are we doing on filling this position? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I think we’re going well Mr. Chairman, we 

empaneled—a panel essentially last week, which includes Stephen 
165 

Ayers, it includes the CFOs of the Government Accountability Office and the Government Printing Office. Some 53 re ́sume ́s are 

being reviewed right now. Clearly that’s a critically important position and the process is moving along. 

Senator ALLARD. That’s all the questions that the subcommittee 

has. I would like to thank you for your participation. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

The subcommittee on legislative branch will stand in recess, 

until Wednesday, April 5, 2006 when it will hear testimony from 

the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police Board. Thank you. 

[Whereupon at 11:15 a.m., Wednesday, March 15, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 5.] 

(167) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

U.S. SENATE 

SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee will come to order. This 

morning, we meet to take testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget 

requests for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, 

U.S. Capitol Police, and the Capitol Guide Service and Special 

Services Office. 

We welcome our witnesses this morning. First, we will hear from 

the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, Mr. William 

Pickle. Good morning, Mr. Pickle. 

Mr. PICKLE. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. The Sergeant at Arms’ budget request total is 

$224 million, an increase of about $25 million or 12 percent over 

the current year. The budget would fund an additional 34 employees as well as implement additional security initiatives. Funding is 

also included to continue the telephone replacement project. 

Following the Sergeant at Arms, we will hear from the Capitol 

Police Board, currently chaired by House Sergeant at Arms Bill 

Livingood. Good morning, Bill. 

The Board is requesting $295 million for the Capitol Police, an 

increase of $48 million or almost 20 percent over the current year. 

The request includes 101 additional sworn officers and seven additional administrative employees, which would bring the department staffing to a total of 2,180 employees. 

The budget includes $28 million for overtime, about $8 million 

more than the police department anticipates will be needed this 

year, and we have some concerns about that level. 
168 

Finally, we will again hear from Mr. Livingood, this time as 

chairman of the Capitol Guide Board. Also present is Tom Stevens, 

the head of the Capitol Guide Service and Congressional Special 

Services Office. 

The Board is requesting $8.5 million for the Guide Service. This is an increase of $4.6 million over the current budget, with the expectation that 71 additional guides and visitor services employees 

will be needed to operate the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) in fiscal 

year 2007. 

Before we begin this hearing, I would like to say thank you to 

outgoing Chief Terry Gainer. Today is his last day on the job, and 

I appreciate all the good work he has done to improve the Capitol 

Police force and serve the Congress. The department is stronger, 

better trained and equipped, and more capable than when Chief 

Gainer took the helm 2 years ago. I wish him luck in his next adventure. 

Before I finish my statements, we have Senator Burns, Mr. Pickle, who has some questions that he has asked us to put forward. 

After the hearing, we will submit those questions to you with the 

hope that you can get back with a response within 10 days. So, if 

you could respond to those questions at a later date after we have 

finished the hearing, we would appreciate that, Mr. Pickle. And so, 

having made that initial request, Mr. Pickle, please go ahead. We 

look forward to hearing your comments. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks again for inviting me to testify this morning. As I have said in the last 2 or 3 

years that I have been here and appeared before this subcommittee, I am so pleased to represent the hundreds of men and 

women who comprise the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. I don’t 

think you are going to find a more dedicated or committed group 

of Federal employees anywhere, and I am sure that you and this 

subcommittee share that belief as well, after witnessing the great 

job they do. Mr. Chairman, I have a much more formal statement. 

You stole a little of my thunder in your opening remarks. So, I am 

going to ask that my formal statement be submitted for the record, 

and I will just talk for a couple of minutes, if I may. 

As you indicated, we have asked for about $224 million or about 

a 12.8-percent increase over our 2006 appropriation. These funds 

will continue to allow us to provide the service that is so important 

to the Senate. In particular, the increase that is reflected in this 

budget covers our telecommunications modernization project. It 

also covers 34 positions, as you indicated, 17 of which are designated for the CVC. The other positions are spread out over our 

areas of technology and security. In addition, we are funding some 

initiatives in our Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. 

These initiatives haven’t been fully covered previously in any recurring budget request, and I think probably what we are going to see 

in out-years, too, is continued growth in that area. But this year, 

there is a sizable increase, as you noted, in our security and emergency preparedness allocation. 

Mr. Chairman, in my formal statement, I talk about a number 

of challenges that we have met successfully and a number of ac-
169 

complishments that this office, and particularly the staff, has 

achieved. I want to take a minute to introduce the senior management team here, because they are outstanding. I am going to start 

with my Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Lynne Halbrooks. The Executive Assistant who is the Democratic Leader’s Representative is 

Nancy Erickson. Greg Hanson is our Chief Information Officer and 

Assistant Sergeant at Arms. Chuck Kaylor is the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency Preparedness. Al 

Concordia is the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police Operations 

and Liaison. Esther Gordon is the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for 

Operations, and Dan Strodel is our General Counsel. I also want 

to acknowledge, and I know he is going to be a little embarrassed 

by this, my Chief Financial Officer, Chris Dey. Chris works very 

closely with Carrie Apostolou and Nancy Olkewicz, and Chris is the 

ultimate professional, as Carrie and Nancy can attest to. He keeps 

us straight. He keeps me out of financial problems with this subcommittee, and we are just very delighted to have him. 

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate you introducing your staff and having them here this morning. 

I couldn’t agree with you more, I think you have got a good staff. 

GUIDING PRINCIPALS

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Last year, 

when I testified, I talked about the three guiding principals that 

we follow in doing a better job here at the Senate. The first one 

is to continue to maintain security of this complex. Since 9/11, the 

whole world has changed here. Maintaining security is very expensive and very complex, and we work closely with the Capitol Police 

to do the best job we can. The second focus is to follow the leadership’s mandate to provide state-of-the-art technology. I don’t think 

anyone can ever have state-of-the-art technology. You know, 

Moore’s Law says everything changes every 11⁄2 years or so. Well, 

we are close to state-of-the-art, and it’s only because of this subcommittee’s support that we have reached the level that we have. 

And finally, it’s rather cliche ́, but customer service continues to be 

a guiding force in the Sergeant at Arms office. It is used over and 

over again, and sometimes it loses its meaning. But when you have 

over 100 business units as we do and roughly 950 people working 

here within the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, you have a lot of 

exposure to a very demanding community. I think our people do a 

great job. I often hear about it when we don’t. I seldom hear about 

it when we do. But we try, they try, and customer service is still 

our priority. 

STRATEGIC PLAN

Mr. Chairman, there is one final thing I want to do. I want to 

talk briefly about our strategic plan. I know how important GPRA 

is to you, and I know how you like to hold each of the agencies 

under you accountable. We have been working on a strategic plan 

for the last 6 to 9 months. It’s a very comprehensive plan. I think 

that you will see the seriousness with which we view this plan, and 

I expect to share it with the subcommittee very soon. We would 

welcome any comments from you or your staff. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. We look forward to that. 
170 

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you. Finally, I want to digress for just a moment. You mentioned Chief Terry Gainer, and I just want to acknowledge, on our part from the Senate side, how much we will 

miss him. Chief Gainer is the ultimate professional. I think he is 

arguably one of the best Chiefs of Police in the country. When you 

talk to people in the law enforcement community, they echo those 

sentiments. We often use the word leadership. Leadership is important. And we always say you know leadership when you see it. 

Well, when you see Terry Gainer, you see leadership. We may not 

always agree with him, but he is one of the main reasons we have 

such an outstanding department, such a professional department. 

And I think he will be sorely missed, but we wish him bon voyage 

and Godspeed. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral remarks, and 

I’d be happy to take questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. PICKLE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. 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 2007, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a total budget 

of $224,043,000, an increase of $25,343,000 (or 12.8 percent) over the fiscal year 

2006 budget. This request will allow us to maintain the improvements and level of 

service we provide to the Senate community. It will also fund 34 new staff members 

who will maintain the Senate’s expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center and 

develop and maintain business and network security applications, among other support services. Appendix A, accompanying this testimony, elaborates on the specific 

components of our fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

Last year I testified before this Committee and reported on our progress in accomplishing 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. These priorities continue to guide the Office 

of the Sergeant at Arms. 

This year I am pleased to highlight some of this office’s activities including a new 

strategic plan we are developing and the challenges we have overcome since last 

year. 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. Lynne M. Halbrooks serves as my Deputy, and she and I are 

joined by Administrative Assistant Rick Edwards, Executive Assistant Nancy 

Erickson, General Counsel Dan Strodel, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security 

and Emergency Preparedness Chuck Kaylor, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police 

Operations Albert V. Concordia, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief Information 

Officer J. Greg Hanson, and Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations Esther L. 

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 U.S. Capitol Police. 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 third year testifying before this Committee and I would be remiss if 

I did not mention how proud I continue to be of the men and women with whom 

I work. The employees of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms are some of the most 
171 

committed and creative in government. We have made huge strides as an organization these past three 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. 

Strategic Plan 

The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is developing a comprehensive strategic plan 

and performance goals for services we provide. The plan will establish the level of 

performance that the Senate expects from us, and will help us build on our 

strengths and address weaknesses. 

During my tenure with the Senate, I have seen how Sergeant at Arms staff works 

to continuously improve the level of service it delivers to this institution. Our strategic plan acknowledges this dedication and skill, and provides guidance on how to 

focus these efforts. The plan documents the mission, vision, values, and principles 

of this office, so our employees, our customers, and Senate Leadership will know 

what our objectives are and how we plan to achieve them. 

We already deliver outstanding service to the Senate, and this strategic plan will 

help us continue to do so. I look forward to presenting this Committee with the strategic plan later this year. It was developed with the input of all levels of management, and, I believe, accurately lays a clear roadmap for the future of this organization. 

Customer Service and Support 

One priority of the strategic plan is to promote within the Office of the Sergeant 

at Arms a culture that is focused on excellence in customer service. Every aspect 

of our work at the Senate focuses on serving the Senators, staff members, and the 

public. Our efforts in the areas of security, information technology, and operations 

all focus on providing services that the Senate needs to function properly. Our customers usually are Senate staff, but they also include anyone who contacts the Senate and members of the media who report about the institution. As a measure of 

our overall focus on customer service, almost one-quarter of the staff of this office 

provides direct customer support: Capitol Operators; Appointments Desk staff; 

Media Gallery staff; customer support analysts; telecommunications representatives; 

dedicated customer support personnel in our print shop, Recording Studio, and Photography Studio; and Help Desk contractors. 

Major Challenges of the Past Year 

As is true every year, this past year has offered several challenges to the Office 

of the Sergeant at Arms. Besides frequent suspicious item alerts, the Senate had 

air space incursion alerts and the recent Russell Senate Office Building evacuation. 

The Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts in midSeptember 2005 and for Samuel A. Alito in early January 2006. In August 2005, 

Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and affected 

the ability of several Senate state offices to serve their constituents. These events 

highlight how effectively this office, in conjunction with the Senate support organizations and Legislative Branch agencies with which we work, has adopted procedures that enable us to rise to these challenges. 

Building Evacuations.—On May 11, 2005, the Capitol Police evacuated the Capitol and Senate and House Office Buildings due to an incoming aircraft. The actions 

of the police were exemplary, and the Members, staff, and visitors cooperated fully 

during the evacuation. When the next air space intrusion happened about one 

month later, we were even more prepared and an assembly area for Senators was 

activated. 

On February 8, 2006, a hazardous material alarm sounded in the Russell Building. The alarm indicated the presence of a substance that was potentially hazardous, and people in the Russell Building were directed by the Capitol Police to 

move to the Legislative Garage. Senators and staff moved to the garage, where they 

sheltered in place for about three hours. 

Immediately staff from the Sergeant at Arms and other Senate offices prepared 

to open a Senate Emergency Operations Center and started implementing their 

emergency plans. As an example, our contract IT Help Desk staff that was evacuated to the garage ensured the continuity of Help Desk operations by shifting the 

function to technicians located off-site. All of these activities follow the established 

protocols for this kind of emergency. 

The atmosphere in the Russell Building and the Legislative Garage was marked 

by a distinct sense of calm and control that lasted from the start of the incident 

through its completion. Fortunately, the investigation found no hazardous material, 

and Senators and staff left safely. 
172 

This event demonstrated how the Capitol Police, as well as the Sergeant at Arms 

Offices of Police Operations and Security and Emergency Preparedness have made 

progress over the past few years in establishing a controlled, efficient response to 

incidents at the Senate. The coordinated and measured response met the Senate’s 

needs for information and for security. 

Hurricane Katrina.—Even before Hurricane Katrina hit on August 29, 2005, Sergeant at Arms staff was working to ensure affected state offices would be able to 

recover quickly. After the hurricane, some members of our staff assisted from Washington, D.C., while others went to the area to help with the recovery and with the 

family assistance center. 

A wide range of SAA staff participated in the state offices’ recovery. Our State 

Office Liaison was the first point of contact for the offices, ensuring that they knew 

how to contact us and others who could help. CIO staff members also played pivotal 

roles. Before the hurricane, they inventoried equipment in the threatened offices 

and readied replacement equipment. They also made sure that telephone calls to the 

state offices would be forwarded to another location if the staff evacuated. 

The first priority of the staff in the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama offices 

was their safety and the safety of their families. Within days, though, they got back 

to work, connecting constituents with the services they needed. To do this, they 

needed access to space, computers, telephones, and power. 

SAA staff supplied the equipment and facilities that offices needed. Our State Office Liaison worked with the General Services Administration to find facilities that 

staff could use while their offices were unavailable. The CIO’s team improvised 

ways to transport equipment to the area; they sent equipment to the closest place 

with delivery service and determined the next steps from there. In one case, they 

even sent satellite telephones to the area with another elected official. Additionally, 

the CIO’s staff monitored the status of the circuits and networks, configured and 

shipped equipment to each affected site, installed LAN drops, and provided dial-up 

modems and frame relay circuits. One staff member spent a month in Mississippi 

supporting the Capitol Police mobile radio system. 

Across the SAA, staff members were diligent in their efforts to help the state offices become operational. The security and emergency preparedness team obtained 

satellite telephones for the affected Senators, and sent staff to the area to work with 

the family assistance center. The Telecommunications Operations team revised calling arrangements for forwarded numbers and coordinated the delivery of service 

and equipment to temporary locations. Customer Support Analysts made sure that 

offices received the services they needed, and the Employee Assistance Program provided counseling support to staff in the area. 

The work of the SAA helped Senate state offices recover quickly. We had the ability and the resources to provide even more support, and we were prepared to do 

so in advance of Hurricane Rita. These hurricanes and their impact on state offices 

demonstrated how important it is that our continuity of operations and emergency 

preparedness efforts reach beyond Washington, D.C. 

Support for Senate Events.—During Senate events, the staff of the Office of the 

Sergeant at Arms fills crucial roles supporting the Senate’s tradition of dignity and 

public access while implementing comprehensive security. Since my last testimony 

before this Committee, this office has supported the Lying-in-Honor of Rosa Parks, 

the annual State of the Union address, joint sessions of Congress, visits by dignitaries, and high-profile hearings. This past year, two of the most visible events 

were the hearings for John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito. 

In advance of the Roberts hearings, Sergeant at Arms security staff and the Capitol Police worked with the Judiciary and Rules Committees to implement the appropriate level of security. Technology and Media Galleries staff enhanced the ability of the press to gather information and file stories during these historic events. 

Temporary telephone lines, systems, and office equipment were provided. We implemented both wired and wireless infrastructure so media representatives could file 

stories and pictures in almost real time. The press and the public were accommodated, security was ensured, and the logistics surrounding the hearings never became the focus of the story. 

We have a systematic approach for determining security measures for the many 

activities at the Senate and across the Capitol. The Capitol Police, with our guidance and support, established a standard matrix that they apply to Congressional 

events. This matrix helps the police evaluate threat intelligence, logistics needs, and 

various criteria related to the events; determine what level of security each event 

requires; and assign the appropriate resources. Our Media Galleries employ postevent reviews to improve the service they provide. For major events, our technology 

staff reviews past events and looks ahead to evaluate what technology is needed and 
173 

whether a specific event requires infrastructure support beyond the level customarily available. 

We have made substantial progress in supporting Senate and Capitol events over 

the past several years. In the face of dramatically increased security needs, staff 

from the Sergeant at Arms and other offices supporting the Senate, as well as from 

across the government, coordinate their activities to provide efficient behind-thescenes services to facilitate these historic Congressional events. 

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. 

Almost five years ago, our security programs started in earnest in response to an 

immediate need to protect the Senate and enable it to function in the midst of the 

catastrophic events that were occurring. Our programs are now proven and they ensure the continuity of the Senate’s operations and the safety of its Members, staff, 

and visitors both here in Washington, D.C., and in the state offices. Events of this 

past year have offered opportunities to consolidate our efforts and ensure that they 

are comprehensive and systematic. These efforts integrate information technology 

with our security initiatives to deliver a comprehensive approach to security that 

takes advantage of all of the tools that are available to the Senate. 

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 

Notification and Communications; State Office Security and Preparedness; Emergency Plans, Organizations, and Facilities; Training; Exercises; Office Services; and 

Accountability. 

Each of the above elements reflects a distinct set of activities that support the 

Senate and that build on the Senate’s layered security strategy, which is the framework we use to address security challenges. 

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 improved our notification and communications processes over the past year. We expanded the coverage and speed of delivering text alerts to the Senate when we integrated BlackBerry and e-mail alerts and 

notifications into one process within the Capitol Police. We expanded the telephonic 

alert system so it now includes more Senate staff members and its notification process is significantly faster. With an automated process for maintaining emergency 

contact information, each office can now use a Web interface to maintain staff emergency contact information and can designate the recipients of alert and notification 

messages. Over 1,100 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 and Senate Office Buildings. 

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 are prototyping a system to use Senate Cable Television to 

broadcast staff alerts and notifications. We are also testing an expansion of our 

emergency BlackBerry messaging to include additional carriers. 

State Office Security and Preparedness 

Extending security and emergency preparedness programs to Senate state offices 

remains an important objective of the Sergeant at Arms, and this past year’s natural disasters point out the importance of this program. Over the past several years 

we have expanded physical security and continuity planning support to offices 

across the country. Physical security has been enhanced in 120 state offices, with 

51 of the 120 offices completed in the past year. We are working with another 161 

state offices on their individual security enhancements. Our emergency planning 

support emphasizes including state offices in each Member’s continuity planning. 

This year we are embarking on a major project to develop and implement a comprehensive program for state office security and preparedness. The program will establish guidelines, training, references, online tools, and other materials to help 
174 

state offices develop and sustain comprehensive security, emergency preparedness, 

and continuity planning. 

Emergency Plans, Organizations and Facilities 

Our emergency plans ensure that we attend to the safety of Senate Members and 

staff, and the continuity of the Senate in an emergency. I can report that every 

Member office has completed an Emergency Action Plan that is on record with our 

Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. 

We provide a range of publications and support for establishing, maintaining, and 

testing emergency and continuity plans. The publications include the Senate’s Planning Guide, which covers both emergency preparedness and continuity planning. We 

established working groups to identify and address communications, facilities, transportation, and continuity. One gap we have already identified is the need for postevent care and family assistance. We are establishing plans to 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. 

Training 

Training helps Senate staff know what to expect in an emergency and how to use 

the equipment we provide. We train office staff to create continuity plans and emergency plans, to use the accountability systems, and to work with other staff members if a traumatic event does occur. Our training program is coordinated through 

the Joint Office of Education and Training. 

Training activities over the past year included 56 escape hood training sessions 

that were delivered to 1,639 staff members; 19 chemical, biological, radiological, and 

explosives briefings for 358 staff; 10 intern orientations reaching 805 staff; 66 emergency action plan training sessions reaching 78 staff; eight training sessions on 

emergency supply kits reaching 55 staff; nine victim rescue unit training sessions 

for 35 staff; 15 office emergency coordinator basic and advanced training sessions 

reaching 131 staff; 16 emergency preparedness updates attended by 220 staff; nine 

mobility impaired classes; two shelter-in-place seminars attended by 50 staff; one 

family assistance center workshop attended by 35 staff; and special topic seminars 

for 140 staff. We also developed three new continuity planning classes and delivered 

13 of them to 150 staff. 

Exercises 

We have a comprehensive exercise program to validate, evaluate, and practice existing Senate emergency plans, identify gaps in those plans, and establish and verify 

new requirements. This year we conducted nine major exercises in partnership with 

the Capitol Police and other Legislative Branch agencies, as well as a number of 

drills such as office building evacuations and other smaller-scale activities. We test 

our alert systems every month by sending test messages to all designated staff 

members. As part of our effort to continuously improve these processes, we implemented a system that catalogs and addresses observations and findings related to 

the Senate’s emergency response programs. 

Office Services 

Over the past year we created and distributed informational and training brochures to Senate offices. We distributed 3,000 Emergency Annunciator System brochures; 6,500 Quick2000 Escape Hood brochures; and 6,500 Victim Rescue Unit brochures. What Every Staff Member Should Know About Emergencies at the United 

States Senate was distributed to 4,500 people; Senate Office Building Evacuation 

Procedures for Those with Mobility Impairments had a distribution of 3,000. We distributed 3,000 Emergency Supply Kits brochures; 2,000 copies of ‘‘I’m Safe’’ Phone 

Home; and 3,500 copies of the Emergency Preparedness Guide. In addition, we 

worked with 105 offices to create tailored emergency information cards, over 4,000 

of which have been distributed. 

We also published articles and notifications on key security and preparedness topics, and completed the rollout of much of our emergency preparedness equipment. 

Wireless emergency annunciators have been located across the Senate, and we participated in developing and fielding automated emergency defibrillators in our office 

buildings. We have deployed almost 1,200 Victim Rescue Units Senate-wide to supplement the escape hood program, and we distributed 407 Emergency Supply Kits 

to Senate offices. Over 20,000 items of equipment that have been distributed to offices and throughout Senate buildings have been inventoried and checked for serviceability. 

As a last item, the public address system is fully operational in all the Senate 

Office Buildings, garages, cafeterias, and in the Senate Child Care Center and the 
175 

Page dorm. The system will be used to give instructions in the public areas of buildings during an emergency. 

Accountability 

During a threat or an incident, we must be able to establish an accurate and 

timely accounting of Senate Members and staff. In conjunction with the Capitol Police, we placed into production a system that provides the ability to take office accountability reports using tablet computers and wireless technology. The system 

maintains a database for personnel accountability in the event of emergency. It provides office managers and staff with the ability to construct lists for notification, delegate responsibilities for continuity activities, and track the status of office staff in 

an emergency. To date, 140 Senate Member and Committee offices have been 

trained to use the system. 

We deployed a planning template that helps offices establish emergency action 

plans and keep them up to date. We trained 78 Office Emergency Coordinators and 

Chiefs of Staff on accounting for staff members, and also trained 220 staff members 

in emergency preparedness this past year. 

As we move forward we are prototyping a remote check-in capability that will use 

BlackBerry devices and will enable staff to check in without reporting to the assembly area. We are also testing a system that will provide a secure way to account 

for Senators at a Briefing Center or Alternate Chamber. The system will be able 

to be updated real-time. 

Mail Safety 

In addition to the priorities and programs outlined above, a critical aspect of our 

security stems from the anthrax and ricin incidents in the past years. 

As a result of these serious exposures, all mail and packages coming into the Senate are tested, whether they come through the U.S. Postal Service or from other delivery services. We have outstanding processing procedures in place here at the Senate. The organizations that know the most about securing mail cite the Senate mail 

facility as among the best, and when other government agencies look for ways to 

improve their mail security, they visit our facility. 

Last year, the Senate Post Office processed and delivered over 14,200,000 items 

to Senate offices, including over 10,000,000 pieces of U.S. Postal Service mail; almost 4,000,000 pieces of internal mail that are routed within the Senate and other 

government agencies; almost 70,000 packages; and over 150,000 courier items. And 

we are good stewards of taxpayer dollars in the process; we processed about 90 percent of the number of items that the House of Representatives processed and we 

accomplished it for just over one-third of the cost that the House incurred. 

Early in fiscal year 2007 we anticipate moving into a newly constructed Senate 

Mail Facility that will include state-of-the-art mail and package inspection and testing. The new facility will provide a safer and more secure work environment for 

Post Office employees. The Senate Post Office will continue to process U.S. Postal 

Service mail at the new facility using the techniques we currently use. Once we 

move into the new facility, we will also take over package processing, which is currently provided by a vendor. We expect that bringing the processing of packages in 

house will increase the security of the packages and will save the Senate over 

$200,000 annually. 

Foreign Codels 

Our security efforts are not limited to Capitol Hill, but also include security for 

Senators on foreign Congressional delegations. The Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2005 authorized Capitol Police officers to travel outside the United States in 

a liaison capacity to coordinate security arrangements for Senators traveling individually or as part of a CODEL. SAA staff, the Capitol Police, and the Department 

of State have moved forward on implementing this authority. Capitol Police officers 

have been trained, and, over the next year, will start accompanying the State Department security personnel to enhance the security for Senators when they travel 

overseas. 

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 created the Senate’s first Information Technology Strategic Plan, An 

IT Vision for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States Senate 

2005–2007, and this year we are half-way through executing that plan. We have already accomplished some impressive results. 
176 

—The Senate’s state-of-the-art alternate computing facility, which helps us ensure 

the Senate’s continuity if an event prevents us from using our primary computing facility, has been completed and fully tested. 

—We continue to measure our customers’ satisfaction, and to set goals for each 

year. This year, we set the goal at 80 percent satisfaction, and we exceeded that 

goal by earning a total customer satisfaction score of 85 percent, based on a 70 

percent response rate from offices. 

—The Senate’s first security operations center, a state-of-the art command center 

to detect electronic threats and protect the Senate from them, has been developed and implemented. 

—We have implemented the Active Directory and Messaging Architecture in 99 

percent of the Senate’s offices. This project, the largest and most successful infrastructure project ever undertaken in the Senate, provides a state-of-the-art 

messaging infrastructure tailored to meet each office’s security and privacy requirements. 

—We have installed 95 percent of an award-winning wireless infrastructure that 

supports cellular telephones, BlackBerry emergency communication devices, and 

data communications across the Senate campus. 

An IT Vision for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States 

Senate 2005–2007 provided a structure for setting priorities and guiding our activities. The plan outlines a strategic technology vision, mission, and five broad information technology strategic goals. The first annual revision of the plan, An IT Vision for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States Senate 2006– 

2008, was recently produced. This updated plan will enable us to serve the Senate 

better by: 

—Reducing paper-based manual processes and moving business online, 

—Developing a consulting practice to align our information technology organization with the Senate’s business requirements, and 

—Creating new information security and assurance initiatives to protect the Senate’s technology infrastructure and data from new forms of security threats. 

We continue to invest in information technology and are pursuing major initiatives to support the Senate. The increased staffing levels requested will enable us 

to support new business applications, IT security, and inventory management. 

Secure, Accessible, Flexible and Reliable Systems in a Modern Information Infrastructure 

We are improving the security of the information 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). Every critical Senate enterprise information 

system has been replicated there, and this past December we conducted the first 

comprehensive test of the facility; the Senate’s primary computing facilities were 

shut down completely and reconstituted at the ACF. This comprehensive exercise, 

which we intend to repeat twice a year, was a complete success. It also provided 

our technical staff with an opportunity to practice the procedures they would have 

to perform in an emergency. 

This past year, with guidance from the Committee on Rules and Administration, 

we provided the Senate’s Leadership Offices and Committees the capability to replicate all of their data files at the ACF. As of February 2006, all of the Leadership 

Offices and seventeen Committees had taken advantage of this capability, which 

provides the Senate with an unprecedented ability to access institutional data in the 

event of an emergency. 

Emergency and Contingency Communications 

We have a comprehensive array of communications systems and options available 

so the Senate will be able to communicate in an emergency. This year we conducted 

final testing on our two Senate emergency response communications vehicles. These 

vehicles have network, telephone, and satellite connectivity, and provide the ability 

to relocate much of the Senate’s information infrastructure virtually anywhere. We 
177 

have trained deployment teams and are updating the vehicles’ concept of operations 

documents. 

Remote Access 

Senate Continuity of Operations and reconstitution sites have been equipped with 

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 provide enhanced, secure access to e-mail, files, the Senate intranet, and a host of applications. 

We also added the ability to provide inexpensive, secure access to our network from 

overseas. We will continue to enhance and expand these capabilities in order to support a potentially dispersed workforce and provide the ability to telecommute. 

In-Building Wireless Infrastructure 

This past year we completed installation of an in-building wireless infrastructure 

in all of the Senate Office Buildings. We are now working in the Capitol; the basement and attic levels are complete, and we will finish installation in the rest of the 

building this year. This innovative system, which won a Government Computing 

News Best Practices Award, improved signal strengths for the carrier for data-only 

BlackBerry service and for the major cellular telephone carriers. The infrastructure 

provides coverage in areas where it was previously poor or non-existent and enables 

Senate staff to connect back to their offices wirelessly. The system has substantially 

paid for itself, saving taxpayers nearly $3 million, because the carriers are paying 

us for the right to use it. 

Securing our Information Infrastructure 

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. 

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. Countering 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 have flexible security control structures and processes that are continually revised and adjusted. 

Protecting the Senate’s information is one of the most important responsibilities 

of the Sergeant at Arms. This year we have taken tremendous strides in this area 

with the development and operation of the Senate’s first security operations center 

(SOC). A redundant SOC is currently under construction at the alternate computing 

facility to ensure the Senate’s continuity of information security operations. The 

mission of the SOC 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. With the SOC, we implement proactive and preemptive actions to deter and thwart attacks on the Senate’s 

information infrastructure and prevent compromise of precious and sensitive data. 

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 the threats. 

Running within the SOC, 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 have proven highly 

effective. 

One way we determine success in IT security is by measuring and tracking what 

does not happen. Because of improved processes, cooperation across the Senate, and 

improved security technologies, we have not experienced a systemic outage within 

our IT infrastructure due to a security incident in two years. Yet the threat environment, as measured by detected security incidents, remains very high. The Senate 

relies on electronic mail to carry out its business functions. In the past 90 days, our 

e-mail anti-virus controls detected and eradicated over 1.5 million infected e-mail 

attachments destined for Senate accounts. Other anti-virus/worm controls detected 

and countered 148,472 viral events from 709 computers located in 120 Senate offices 

between November 20, 2005, and February 20, 2006. During this same period, a 
178 

daily average of only 25–30 individual computers showed signs of infection. To date, 

136 Senate offices use the managed anti-virus systems, and the systems protect over 

11,000 Senate computers. This is one of the main reasons that worm outbreaks affect only about 60 Senate computers while just two years ago, outbreaks infected 

several thousand and caused notable disruption. Our anti-virus products are comprehensive. 

Information security must continue to be an area of emphasis and growth. We will 

continue to invest in this technology and we plan to increase the size of this group 

during fiscal year 2007. 

The Senate Telecommunications Modernization Program 

We are currently in the midst of a multi-year plan to modernize the Senate’s entire telecommunications infrastructure. The modernization will provide improved reliability and redundancy to support daily operations and continuity concerns, and 

will take advantage of technological advances to provide a more flexible and robust 

communications infrastructure. During this past year we completed gathering the 

requirements and we now are in the final stages of preparing a request for proposals to be released this spring. We anticipate entering into a contract this summer 

to upgrade or replace Senate telecommunications systems, including the main 

DMS–100 telephone switch, G3i PBX, Conference Bridge, fax broadcast system, 

Group Alert System, voice mail system, and the telecommunications management 

system that we use for provisioning of telephone service and to generate the telephone bills and directories. 

Most of the Senate’s voice communications infrastructure is based on older technologies. Under the telecommunications modernization program, we will re-engineer 

this infrastructure to provide redundancy for increased reliability and availability 

resulting in a state-of-the-art system built upon converged voice, data, and video 

communications technologies. This approach will allow economies of scale in construction and management, and from the user’s side, the ability in the future to 

have a synchronized audio and video conference with document sharing and collaboration at their workstation. Users may also be able to access live or archived video 

on their workstation, and combine information from a database with a telephone 

call that is being transferred from one person to another. 

Modern Technology to Enhance Customer Service 

Customer Service, Satisfaction, and Communications 

We continue to pay attention to how well we meet the Senate’s technology needs. 

Our third annual CIO Customer Satisfaction survey revealed that we reached an 

overall customer satisfaction rating of 85 percent. We have conducted follow-up surveys for the last two years, and our customer satisfaction rating increased in each 

of those years. These results are very exciting and they indicate that we are moving 

in the right direction. The Customer Satisfaction survey helps the CIO organization 

develop a focused customer satisfaction action plan. 

This year, to provide status and critical information about Senate systems more 

quickly, we instituted a comprehensive system outage notification strategy linking 

e-mail notifications, Help Desk activity, and the Senate’s intranet to report system 

outage information in near-real time. Another new and innovative communication 

approach we implemented is a CIO Web log or blog, which uses the power of the 

intranet as a communication channel to disseminate information to our customers 

quickly. 

We opened a new technology resource center in March that serves as a common 

technology document repository and technical library. This facility, with both hardcopy documents and an on-line library, is an outstanding resource for sharing technical information and for documenting and recording business practices for continuity purposes. 

In addition to our annual comprehensive survey, our Help Desk follows all of its 

service calls with a customer satisfaction survey. This past year our Help Desk contractor consistently posted customer satisfaction results at or above 96 percent. 

A New Information Technology Support Contract 

The final option period of our current IT support contract ends in September 

2007. Due to the contract’s large size, importance with respect to customer service, 

and complexity, we have begun the process of constructing a request for proposals 

that incorporates the lessons we have learned during the current contract. We expect to release the request for proposals during the summer of 2006, with contract 

award in early 2007. We plan to allow for a transition period to ensure minimal disruption or degradation in service quality. 
179 

A Robust, Reliable, Modern Messaging Architecture 

We are completing deployment of the comprehensive Active Directory and Messaging Architecture that provides a spectrum of options for data management that 

ranges from centralized to distributed. A great success story, this project began in 

2003 with the three primary goals of providing a computing platform that would enable 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. Technical design was led by CIO staff with 

support from our vendor partners. The design options were presented to Senate offices along with the expected impact on each office of migrating all computers, user 

accounts, and e-mail. We committed to specific time frames for completing each office migration, and we met those timeframes for every office. 

Web-Based and Customer-Focused Business Applications 

The CIO completed the design for the first Senate services portal this year. Based 

on requirements of Senate Leadership and the Committee on Rules and Administration, the portal, called TranSAAct, will move paper-based, manual processes to the 

Web. TranSAAct will allow Member offices to manage and track invoices for SAA 

services through a Web interface, and it will provide access to a host of Web-based 

applications, such as the on-line Service Academy Nominations System. Built on an 

extensible modern database framework, TranSAAct will allow for expansion as new 

applications are added. With the formal design of TranSAAct’s first phase complete, 

we are currently engaged with the Administrative Managers Steering Group in a 

user verification and validation process that will lead to complete development and 

Senate-wide rollout later this year. 

We have continued delivering support to the Secretary of the Senate through improvements and enhancements of the Financial Management Information System 

(FMIS) and the Legislative Information System (LIS). We worked with the Secretary supporting FMIS by providing four Web FMIS releases which added 

functionality, improvements to the user interface, and enhancements to disaster recovery processes. 

Enhanced Communications and Infrastructure 

A variety of projects will provide enhanced communications within and between 

offices. Enhanced communications are being delivered on an improved network infrastructure, and frame relay bandwidth to the state offices has been significantly 

increased to support videoconferencing and data replication. The highly successful 

videoconferencing program, which enables staff members in Capitol Hill offices to 

conduct videoconferences with state offices and other remote locations, has installed 

nearly 400 endpoints to date. The electronic fax program is replacing stand-alone 

fax machines with an integrated server-based fax system that eliminates paper. We 

anticipate completion of the enterprise tape backup system during this year; the 

system already automatically backs up over one hundred servers located in our primary computing facility to the alternate computing facility. 

Promoting Modern Information Technology in the Senate 

A new Technology Demonstration Center, located with our customers in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, was opened this past year. At the Center, customers can 

try all of the available information technology equipment before making purchases. 

We also use the Center for live demonstrations of new and emerging technologies. 

We anticipate more of these types of activities in the Demonstration Center in the 

upcoming year. 

Last year we hosted two highly successful Senate Emerging Technology Conferences and Exhibitions to expose Senate staff members to new technologies and 

concepts. These conferences are designed around technology themes of immediate 

interest Senate-wide. 

In order to perform technology assessments, feasibility analysis, and proof of concept studies, we recently created an advanced technology assessment laboratory. 

Technologies and solutions are vetted and tested here prior to being announced for 

pilot, prototype, or mass deployment to the Senate. Results of studies performed in 

the laboratory are published on the emerging technology page of the CIO’s intranet 

site on Webster. To ensure that the laboratory considers the proper technologies and 

solutions, we have also chartered a Senate-wide technology assessment group consisting of members of the CIO organization and our customers. The group performs 

high-level requirements analysis and helps prioritize new technologies and solutions 

for investigation in the laboratory, prototype development, pilot, and full-scale rollout. 
180 

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 

make up our support team continue to provide exceptional customer service to the 

Senate community. 

Capitol Facilities 

Capitol Facilities 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. We are in the process 

of implementing an integrated work management system with a Web interface for 

service requests. The system will enable customers to view all furnishings currently 

in stock without making an escorted trip to the storage facility, to request environmental services and keys, and to view special function rooms and request set-ups. 

Customers will be able to check the status of their requests through tracking numbers. 

This past year we also increased our support for the Senate in our framing and 

furnishings areas. We purchased a dry mounting press that expands the framing 

shop’s capabilities by enabling permanent mounting of newspaper articles and 

photos, and we implemented a furniture finishing protocol that replicates the original finish for historical pieces in the Capitol. 

The opening of the Capitol Visitor Center will add 66,500 square feet of Senate 

space to our responsibilities: 41,000 square feet of office space, 8,000 square feet of 

meeting space, and 17,500 square feet of other space. Compared to our current obligations, we will clean and maintain almost one-third more office space and three 

times more meeting space, and will furnish over 50 percent more office and meeting 

space. This will require us to hire 17 new employees before the Center opens. 

Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail 

Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail, or PGDM, provides printing, photocopying, 

design, and production services to the Senate. Last year, it printed 16,850,962 

sheets in color (a 12 percent increase over the 2004 volume, and 400 percent increase over 2003), and it produced almost 10,000 floor charts. PGDM provides a variety of other services to the Senate including the management of the Senate Support Facility, and support for the digital scanning of incoming constituent correspondence. 

Senate Support Facility.—We are pleased to report that we have a new, fully operational Senate Support Facility that enables us to provide secure storage for use by 

the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms. This facility provides a secure, climate-controlled environment to warehouse the Senate’s historical art and 

artifacts, Senate equipment and supplies, and some of the Senate’s emergency 

transportation vehicles. The facility came on-line this past February, and all the 

contents and functions of the six previously dispersed warehouse locations have 

been moved and consolidated into the new facility. 

Correspondence Support.—During 2005 the guidance we provided to Members’ 

staffs on addressing outgoing mail in a format that takes full advantage of postage 

discounts resulted in savings of almost $2 million. We also started offering digital 

scanning of incoming constituent mail and outgoing response letters that works in 

conjunction with the existing correspondence management systems. This new capability enables users to import images of their office mail. Sixteen Senate offices have 

chosen to use these imaging services, and we scanned more than 240,000 documents 

during the first twelve months of this program. 

Employee Assistance Program 

Over the past year we enhanced and expanded our Employee Assistance Program. 

The program provides assessments and short-term counseling for Senate staff and 

their family members twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week. It improves the 

ability of supervisors to manage troubled employees, to enhance the work environment, and to improve employee job performance. It also helps employees find the 

resources they need to address some of the personal challenges they face every day. 

The Employee Assistance Program coordinates with security staff to train people on 

reacting to emergencies and to ensure that processes are in place to deal with emergencies. 

During the past year, the EAP staff worked with people in the offices affected by 

Hurricane Katrina, and built even stronger relationships with managers across the 

Senate. The staff also trained a Peer Support Team that can provide immediate support to employees and their family members if they are affected by a critical event. 
181 

Recording Studio 

The Recording Studio televises the activity on the Senate Floor and in Committee 

hearings, and it provides a production studio and equipment for Senators’ use. Last 

year, it televised all 1,222 hours of Senate Floor proceedings, as well as 744 Committee hearings. 

Committee Hearing Room Upgrade.—In 2003 we started a project to upgrade and 

install multimedia equipment in Committee hearing rooms. The project included 

digital signal processing, audio systems, and broadcast-quality robotic camera systems. 

To date we have installed upgrades in eight hearing rooms. Several more rooms 

are scheduled for upgrades in the near future. These enhancements include improved speech intelligibility and software-based systems that we can configure based 

on individual Committee needs. The system’s backup will take over within minutes 

if the main electronics fail, and because the system is networked, staff can automatically route audio from one hearing room to other hearing rooms to accommodate overflow crowds. 

The most significant work we anticipate for the Senate Recording Studio over the 

next year is its move 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. 

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 in the states. 

This past year, we conducted an assessment of our training program to ensure we 

are meeting the needs of the Senate community. The assessment helped us identify 

skills that are fundamental to success at the Senate, including the ability to communicate effectively and collaborate well. We also identified key skills for managers 

and supervisors, including the ability to motivate, create a vision, organize, and delegate. In response to the needs we identified, we will offer certificate curricula in 

communications and teamwork. 

The Education and Training group offered 425 classes in 2005, with 6,920 Senate 

staff members taking advantage of these classes. The registration desk handled 

31,960 e-mails, telephone calls, and on-line registration requests. 

Of the total number of classes, the technical training group offered 187 classes 

to 1,521 staff members, and provided coaching on various software packages and 

other computer-related subjects to 702 staff members. The professional development 

area offered 237 classes to 4,973 students, and delivered more than 50 special training and team building sessions to Member and Committee offices. The professional 

development group addresses team performance, communication, and conflict resolution, and we encourage managers and supervisors to request customized training for 

their offices. During the last quarter of the year, staff from the professional development group offered training through video teleconferencing to two state offices. In 

the health promotion area, 1,492 staff members participated in the Annual Health 

Fair held in September, and 1,240 participated in health promotion activities 

throughout the year, including cancer screening, bone density screening, and seminars on health-related topics. 

Most of the classes we offer are practical only for staff based in Washington, D.C., 

but we are continuing to expand our offerings to state office staff. In 2005 we offered 

three sessions of the State Training Fair to 119 state office staff, and we conducted 

our annual State Directors Forum for the 37 state managers and directors. The 

‘‘Virtual Classroom,’’ an Internet-based training library of over 500 courses, also enables state office staff to take advantage of the Senate’s training resources; 379 staff 

members from state offices and Washington, D.C., have taken advantage of this 

training option. 

CHALLENGES FOR NEXT YEAR

We met the challenges that we faced this year, and adapted our responses to provide better service and support to the Senate. While we do not know all the challenges next year will bring, we can anticipate some of them. We expect that the 

Capitol Visitor Center will open, that we will start to move forward on an enhanced 

process for issuing and accounting for Congressional identification and access cards, 

and that this year’s election will result in some changes in the membership of the 

Senate. We also know that we will face challenges related to IT security, our technical infrastructure, and our work moving the Senate’s business to the Web. We are 

planning for these changes. 
182 

Capitol Visitor Center 

The opening of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) will affect much of the work of 

this office. The Capitol Facilities group will be affected dramatically, since the work 

of that group will expand to include one-third more space than it currently maintains. The opening will also affect the Senate Recording Studio, which will move 

into the new space. The CVC incorporates significant security features, and we are 

working with other agencies to develop the processes to ensure that the Capitol remains secure. 

As part of the Capitol Visitor Center, we are installing state-of-the-art communications facilities in the Senate expansion space. We will provide a redundant communications path into the Capitol, and our in-building wireless coverage for cellular 

devices will extend into the core of the Center as well as into the Senate expansion 

space. We will also provide any additional office automation equipment required by 

the occupants of the space. Since most of the CVC’s occupants are going to relocate 

from elsewhere on Capitol Hill, we do not expect to spend a significant amount of 

money on new equipment. 

Congressional Identification and Access Cards 

The Executive Branch is implementing a major initiative to use Smart Cards as 

standard identification and access cards across all departments of the federal government. We have been following the progress it is making, and are also looking 

to determine how to increase the security surrounding identification and access 

cards issued at the Senate and across the Legislative Branch agencies. The processes for issuing cards are different across the Capitol campus. We are starting to 

work with representatives from each major Legislative Branch agency to identify 

the requirements that satisfy each agency’s or organization’s security policies so we 

can determine how we might create standard processes. Just within the Senate, we 

issue identification and access cards to people from the media, pages, interns, temporary staff, full-time staff, and others. During the 108th Congress, we issued 

41,000 cards—15,000 to the press. The challenge of tracking and recovering these 

cards has been daunting. By undertaking this initiative, we expect to be able to increase the accountability for the cards and the security of the Senate. 

Transition to New Congress 

This year, we will also face one challenge that we face every other year: the transition to a new Congress. Thirty-three Senators face election this year, and four 

Members have announced their retirement, so we will have at least four new Senators next year. The transition includes providing space for newly elected Senators, 

and providing the whole range of support they need to set up their offices and start 

accomplishing their work for the American people. We provide orientation for newly 

elected Senators, their Chiefs of Staff, and their Administrative Managers. We work 

to ensure that newly elected Senators learn about the resources available to help 

them serve their constituents and accomplish their legislative goals. We also make 

sure returning Senators and staff receive up-to-date information about the services 

available. 

We are engaged in closing down state and Capitol Hill offices of departing Members, equipping the transition office to house Senators-elect from the date of election 

until the beginning of the next Congress, moving the newly sworn-in Senators into 

their temporary suites, and then moving offices as required during the regular office 

move process. 

For closing offices, we shut down all communications services, determine which 

equipment can be inherited by Members’ successors, and inventory and remove all 

equipment in coordination with the other activities of the office. For new and relocated offices, we establish all communications facilities, acquire and install all office 

automation and general office equipment, and ensure that everything works as it 

should. 

IT Security 

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 security operations center; (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. 
183 

Information Technology Infrastructure 

We will complete the build out of the wireless infrastructure for laptops; for the 

Parking, Guide Service, and Capitol Police radio systems; and for the Senate Cloakroom paging systems. We will also aggressively pursue alternative hand-held communications devices and we will ensure that any devices we support will deliver 

seamless emergency notifications. Finally, over the next year we will award the telecommunications modernization contract and complete its first phases. This comprehensive upgrade and replacement of our telecommunications systems will enable 

the Senate to take advantage of Voice over Internet Protocol and converged voice, 

video, and data communications. 

Moving Business to the Web and Enterprise Software Initiatives 

We will continue our initiatives to reduce paperwork and move business to the 

Web by developing the TranSAAct portal to deliver and integrate services and systems and provide two-way Web interaction between customers and service providers. As we move forward on TranSAAct, we are working with Senate customers 

to identify and integrate additional requirements. We are also planning for the next 

major release of Microsoft’s operating system, Vista. Deploying this system and integrating it with other applications will require tremendous effort. Building on these 

developments, we will work toward integrating systems and applications through a 

Web-services architecture that will reduce redundancy and eliminate ‘‘stove-pipe’’ 

systems. 

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 the 

whole range of Capitol 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 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

ATTACHMENT I

FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS—UNITED STATES SENATE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ........................................................................................ $56,700 $62,604 $5,904 10.4 

Expenses ...................................................................................... $65,505 $79,211 $13,706 20.9 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ............................... $122,205 $141,815 $19,610 16.0 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ..................................................... $55,282 $57,757 $2,475 4.5 

Capital Investment ............................................................................... $17,262 $19,831 $2,569 14.9 
184 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—Continued 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal 

Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Nondiscretionary Items ......................................................................... $3,951 $4,640 $689 17.4 

TOTAL ....................................................................................... $198,700 $224,043 $25,343 12.8 

Staffing ................................................................................................. 910 944 34 3.7 

To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of security, support serv- ices and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2007 budget request of $224,043,000, 

an increase of $25,343,000 or 12.8 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The salary 

budget request is $62,604,000, an increase of $5,904,000 or 10.4 percent, and the 

expense budget request is $161,439,000, an increase of $19,439,000 or 13.7 percent. 

The staffing request is 944, an increase of 34 FTEs. 

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 $62,604,000, an increase of $5,904,000 or 10.4 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The salary budget increase is due to the addition of 34 FTEs, a COLA, and merit funding. The additional staff will support the Capitol Visitor Center, augment our 

security team, expand services, and meet new requirements for the Senate community. 

—The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for existing and new services is $79,211,000, an increase of $13,706,000 or 20.9 percent 

compared to fiscal year 2006. Major factors contributing to the expense budget 

increase are emergency preparedness in security operations and planning, 

$7,847,000; additional services and locations under the IT support contract, 

$1,535,000; telephone system maintenance, $1,097,000; consulting and equipment purchases for the Active Directory Messaging Architecture, $1,024,000; 

and maintenance costs related to Enterprise Storage, $585,000. 

—The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is $57,757,000, an increase of $2,475,000 or 4.5 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. This variance 

is primarily due to an increase in Member mail system costs, $1,745,000; and 

state office security enhancements of $700,000, offset by decreases in office 

lease costs. 

—The capital investment budget request is $19,831,000, an increase of $2,569,000 

or 14.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes funds for the replacement and upgrade of the telephone system, 

$10,475,000; data network engineering costs, $2,345,000; electronic printing and 

publication network, $1,800,000; hardware purchases related to the SAN upgrade, $1,750,000; and the Network Upgrade project, $1,646,000. 

—The nondiscretionary items budget request is $4,640,000, an increase of 

$689,000 or 17.4 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The request funds three 

projects that support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the 

Financial Management Information System (FMIS), $3,703,000; maintenance 

and necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System (LIS), 

$840,000; and maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System, 

$97,000. 

ATTACHMENT II.—FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST BY DEPARTMENT

The following is a summary of the SAA fiscal year 2007 budget request on an organizational basis. 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal 

Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Capitol Division .................................................................................... $25,568 $35,399 $9,831 38.5
185 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal 

Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

Operations ............................................................................................. $52,515 $53,558 $1,043 2.0 

Technology Development ....................................................................... $41,153 $47,676 $6,523 15.9 

IT Support Services ............................................................................... $66,927 $71,901 $4,974 7.4 

Staff Offices ......................................................................................... $12,537 $15,509 $2,972 23.7 

TOTAL ....................................................................................... $198,700 $224,043 $25,343 12.8 

Each department’s budget is presented and discussed in detail on the next pages. 

CAPITOL DIVISION 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ........................................................................................ $14,530 $15,908 $1,378 9.5 

Expenses ...................................................................................... $7,938 $15,691 $7,753 97.7 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ............................... $22,468 $31,599 $9,131 40.6 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ..................................................... $3,100 $3,800 $700 22.6 

Capital Investment ............................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

Nondiscretionary Items ......................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

TOTAL ....................................................................................... $25,568 $35,399 $9,831 38.5 

Staffing ................................................................................................. 273 278 5 1.8 

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 $15,908,000, an increase of $1,378,000 or 9.5 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the 

addition of five FTEs, a COLA and merit increases, and other adjustments. The Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness requires an additional COOP planning 

specialist, and the Post Office will add four mail specialists to handle the opening, 

examining, and sampling of commercially delivered packages to the new Senate offsite processing facility. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $15,691,000, 

an increase of $7,753,000 or 97.7 percent, and will primarily will fund security consultants and services required by the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request for state office security 

initiatives is $3,800,000. 

OPERATIONS 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ...................................................................................... $16,592 $18,308 $1,716 10.3 

Expenses .................................................................................... $5,971 $6,323 $352 5.9 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ............................. $22,563 $24,631 $2,068 9.2 
186 

OPERATIONS—Continued 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ Decr 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ................................................... $27,332 $26,777 ($555 ) ¥2.0 

Capital Investment ............................................................................. $2,620 $2,150 ($470 ) ¥17.9 

Nondiscretionary Items ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................... ..................

TOTAL ..................................................................................... $52,515 $53,558 $1,043 2.0 

Staffing ............................................................................................... 302 319 17 5.6 

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, IT 

Request Processing and Administrative Services). 

The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is $18,308,000, 

an increase of $1,716,000 or 10.3 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the 

addition of 17 FTEs, an expected 3.5 percent a COLA, and merit increases. Facilities 

expects to hire 17 staff to maintain the Senate expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $6,323,000, 

an increase of $352,000 or 5.9 percent. In Printing, Graphics and Direct Mail, increases in software and equipment maintenance, $185,000, and purchased equipment, $120,000, are offset by a decrease in warehouse rent, $860,000. Facilities furnishings and materials increase $516,000. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is $26,777,000, a decrease of $555,000 or 2.0 percent. This decrease is due to projected decreases in commercial and federal office expenses. 

The capital investment budget request is $2,150,000, a decrease of $470,000 or 

17.9 percent. Funding is requested to purchase a new electronic printing and publishing network, $1,800,000, and to replace photo printing equipment and upgrade 

software, $250,000. 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ........................................................................................ $11,787 $13,127 $1,340 11.4 

Expenses ...................................................................................... $22,948 $23,398 $450 2.0 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ............................... $34,735 $36,525 $1,790 5.2 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ..................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

Capital Investment ............................................................................... $2,467 $6,511 $4,044 163.9 

Nondiscretionary Items ......................................................................... $3,951 $4,640 $689 17.4 

TOTAL ....................................................................................... $41,153 $47,676 $6,523 15.9 

Staffing ................................................................................................. 134 140 6 4.5 

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 $13,127,000, 

an increase of $1,340,000 or 11.4 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the 

addition of six FTEs, a COLA and merit funding for fiscal year 2007. Technology 

Development requires six FTEs to support the growing demand on IT Security, to 

meet additional requirements for the ACF, and to eliminate of a backlog of development projects. 
187 

The general operations and maintenance expense budget request is $23,398,000, 

an increase of $450,000 or 2.0 percent. This increase is due to increased equipment 

maintenance and professional services costs in IT Security, $422,000; the purchase 

of computer and mainframe equipment and furnishings in Enterprise IT Operations, 

$638,000; and hardware and software maintenance for Enterprise Storage, 

$585,000, offset by a decrease in support costs for the Senate Messaging Infrastructure, $1,000,000. 

The capital investment budget request is $6,511,000, an increase of $4,044,000 or 

163.9 percent. Major projects include the SAN Upgrade, $1,750,000; network upgrade in support the Telecom Modernization Plan, $1,550,000; and the fiber optic 

migration, $900,000. 

The nondiscretionary items budget request is $4,640,000, an increase of $689,000 

or 17.4 percent. The request consists of three projects that support the Secretary 

of the Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial Management Information System (FMIS), maintenance and necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System (LIS), and maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System. 

IT SUPPORT SERVICES 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ...................................................................................... $5,714 $6,260 $546 9.6 

Expenses .................................................................................... $24,663 $27,821 $3,158 12.8 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ............................. $30,377 $34,081 $3,704 12.2 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ................................................... $24,850 $27,180 $2,330 9.4 

Capital Investment ............................................................................. $11,700 $10,640 ($1,060 ) ¥9.1 

Nondiscretionary Items ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................... ..................

TOTAL ..................................................................................... $66,927 $71,901 $4,974 7.4 

Staffing ............................................................................................... 105 107 2 1.9 

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 $6,260,000, an 

increase of $546,000 or 9.6 percent. The salary budget will increase due to the addition of two FTEs, a COLA, and merit funding for fiscal year 2007. The additional 

FTEs will support procurement activities and provide advanced technical expertise. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $27,821,000, 

an increase of $3,158,000 or 12.8 percent. The most significant factors contributing 

to this increase are telephone system maintenance costs, $1,097,000, and annual escalations in the IT Support Contract, $1,535,000. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is $27,180,000, an increase of $2,330,000 or 9.4 percent. Major factors contributing to this budget request 

are voice and data communications for Washington D.C. and state offices, 

$17,395,000; procurement and maintenance of Members’ constituent mail systems, 

$6,000,000; procurement and maintenance of office equipment for Washington D.C. 

and state offices, $2,857,000; and Appropriations Analysis and Reporting System, 

$500,000. 

The capital investment budget request is $10,640,000, a decrease of $1,060,000 or 

9.1 percent, and consists primarily of equipment purchases for the replacement of 

the Capitol Hill telephone system, $10,475,000. 
188 

STAFF OFFICES 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget 

Fiscal Year 

2007 Request 

Fiscal Year 2007 vs. Fiscal 

Year 2006 

Amount Percent Incr/ 

Decr 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries ........................................................................................ $8,077 $9,001 $924 11.4 

Expenses ...................................................................................... $3,985 $5,978 $1,993 50.0 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ............................... $12,062 $14,979 $2,917 24.2 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ..................................................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

Capital Investment ............................................................................... $475 $530 $55 11.6 

Nondiscretionary Items ......................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100.0 

TOTAL ....................................................................................... $12,537 $15,509 $2,972 23.7 

Staffing ................................................................................................. 96 100 4 4.2 

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 $9,001,000, an 

increase of $924,000 or 11.4 percent. The salary budget increase is due to the addition of four FTEs, a COLA, and merit funding. Process Management and Innovation 

requires two FTEs to oversee the Active Directory Messaging Architecture. Human 

Resources and Employee Assistance Program each requests an additional FTE to accommodate increased staff and demand. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is $5,978,000, 

an increase of $1,993,000 or 50.0 percent. The bulk of this increase is due to funding 

for Process Management and Innovation’s professional services and consultants in 

support of information technology prototypes and innovation research and development. 

The capital investment budget request is $530,000, an increase of $55,000 or 11.6 

percent, for continuing project support. 

STAFFING INCREASES

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you. I have a few questions that I 

feel that we need to ask to fully understand what kind of plan you 

are putting together. As we have mentioned, you have requested 34 

additional staff. Half of those are for the CVC—they are new jobs. 

The other half is for duties and responsibilities outside the Capitol 

Visitor Center, and I would like to have an explanation of why you 

need those and what functions are driving that additional staff requirement outside the Capitol Visitor Center. 

Mr. PICKLE. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me give you a 

broad answer for those 17 outside the Capitol and then give you 

a written response that breaks down each position. I think this will 

give you a much more thorough answer. 

Senator ALLARD. That would be helpful. 

MAIL SAFETY

Mr. PICKLE. Okay. Essentially, the 17 positions outside the CVC 

are positions that, for the most part, support or enhance security. 

For instance, 4 of those 17 are positions that will go to our new 

mail and package facility. As you know, we currently process our 

own mail at the Senate Post Office. It will be a state-of-the-art facility that this subcommittee has funded. By all accounts, it’s one 

of the best in the Nation. A vendor currently processes packages, 
189 

and we are taking over the package screening and delivery process 

ourselves. We will use four Federal employees to do it. We believe 

the cost savings will be about $200,000 per year. We base this on 

what we are currently paying to the vendor, and we also base it 

on what we see being done on the House side. I like to brag a little 

bit about our staff and what this subcommittee has supported in 

that regard. We currently process about 90 percent of the mail volume that the House does. A lot of people think it should be much 

more on the House side, but it’s not. Our volume is 90 percent of 

the House’s volume. Yet, we process that mail at almost a $7 million savings per year because we use Senate employees. We think 

similar savings—not as great—will result from using Senate employees for the packaging process. In addition to those four staff 

members, there are other FTEs sprinkled throughout the SAA to 

support network applications, technology, as well as security and 

preparedness. One of the positions which I do want to highlight for 

just a moment is in our Employee Assistance Program. I don’t 

think people realized how important that program is until we 

began to professionalize it here several years ago. Our Employee 

Assistance Program is under a lot of demand from the Senate community. As you know, every time we have an incident or a crisis 

here, we are overwhelmed with the particular needs of the staff 

who work here. This program also helps and benefits each office a 

great deal. It helps managers. It helps staff directors. It teaches 

staff to deal with employees that may have some problems and 

issues. It is a single position, but it’s a very important position. 

And so what I would like to do with all the others, if I may, is give 

you a much more detailed breakdown, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

SERGEANT AT ARMS POSITION JUSTIFICATION—FISCAL YEAR 2007 

Department: Office of Security & Emergency Preparedness 

Branch/Section: Continuity Programs 

Position Title: Continuity Of Operations Planning (COOP) Planning Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB10, $67,675–$101,508 

Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will operationally support the continuity program’s existing relocation facilities and those that are coming online or 

being planned for fiscal year 2006. The new staff will work from classified or sensitive sites to ensure the Senate’s operational viability, and will support the State 

Office COOP planning efforts that were initiated in fiscal year 2006. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. Some of these duties are being performed now. Current staff is 

assigned to support primary contingency facilities within the National Capitol Region and to support Member Offices’ COOP planning efforts, but this leaves other 

facilities unattended with questionable operational status in the event of an emergency. The COOP planning support for Members’ DC and State office locations is 

currently not being adequately supported and this work will overwhelm our current 

planning and preparedness capabilities. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If the request is not approved, the level of planning, preparedness, and response 

to ensure an effective transition to a continuity of operations situation for Member 

Offices, Committees, Senate Offices, and the Senate as a whole will not be adequate. 

Not approving this position would limit our ability to support Member and Committee Offices’ continuity planning efforts as well as our ability to ensure facility 

readiness for the Senate as a whole. 

Department: Facilities 

Branch/Section: Environmental Services 

Position Title: Facilities Worker 
190 

No. of Positions Requested: 14 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB3, $33,824–$50,733 

Essential Duties of Position: The new facilities day staff will clean corridors, perform stairway maintenance, set up water for special events, and clean up waste. 

Throughout the day, the staff will ensure that the area is clean, decontaminated, 

and free of all fluid, debris, spots, stains and odor. The staff will assist in moving 

furniture, delivering non-furniture items, cleaning public restrooms, setting up for 

special events, and removing trash. 

The new facilities night staff will clean elevators and stairwells, conduct early 

morning room set-ups and break downs, and clean corridors and restrooms. The 

staff will also undertake nightly office cleaning and floor care, and will spot clean 

fabric wall panels. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate Expansion Space of the CVC. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we believe that the cost of contracting these 

services at the service level the Senate expects would be prohibitive. Capitol Facilities provides a significantly higher level of service than does the AOC’s contractor. 

Capitol Facilities consistently delivers the high level of service required by the Senate, including an environment that is consistently dust-, debris-, and smudge-free; 

restrooms that are stocked, cleaned and sanitized; and floors that are free of dust, 

debris, soil and stains. 

Department: Facilities 

Branch/Section: Environmental Services 

Position Title: Lead Facilities Worker 

No. of Positions Requested: 2 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB4, $37,581–$56,368 

Essential Duties of Position: New staff will dedicate 75 percent of their time to 

performing the same duties as the Facilities Workers that make up their teams. The 

remaining time will be dedicated to inspecting the team’s work. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate Expansion Space of the CVC. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we believe that the cost of contracting these 

services at the service level the Senate expects would be prohibitive. Capitol Facilities provides a significantly higher level of service than does the AOC’s contractor. 

Capitol Facilities consistently delivers the high level of service required by the Senate, including an environment that is consistently dust-, debris-, and smudge-free; 

restrooms that are stocked, cleaned and sanitized; and floors that are free of dust, 

debris, soil and stains. 

Department: Facilities 

Branch/Section: Facilities Management 

Position Title: Facilities Services Supervisor 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB6, $46,395–$69,593 

Essential Duties of Position: New staff will assign work, provide performance accountability, and provide leadership to the team leaders and facilities workers. In 

addition this staff member will plan work, ensure adherence to safety procedures 

and measures, and ensure that staff members comply with Capitol Facilities policies 

and procedures. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate Expansion Space of the CVC. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, facilities workers and team leaders will not have 

the guidance necessary to meet the cleaning and service needs of the Senate Expansion Space. Customer service and customer service will be affected adversely. 

Department: Post Office 

Branch/Section: Package Delivery Services 

Position Title: Mail Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 3 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB3, $33,824–$50,733 

Essential Duties of Position: New staff will screen all incoming commercial carrier 

package deliveries (e.g., deliveries from UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.). In addition, these 
191 

three specialists will process items that are too large for the Congressional Acceptance Site. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed by a contractor. The 

current service levels provided by the contractor are inadequate and result in late 

deliveries, incorrect routings, and damaged, lost, and unprocessed items. 

The new positions are requested to enable the Senate Post Office to bring the 

processing of packages in house. We expect that this will result in significantly better service. The cost to the Senate is approximately $170,000 per year, but will result in savings in excess of $200,000 annually. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the Senate will continue to experience inadequate service levels, and it will not realize the $200,000 savings that we anticipate. 

The Senate will have to continue contractor support at approximately $470,000 per 

year. Costs and savings represent total amounts for the Package Delivery service. 

Department: Post Office 

Branch/Section: Package Delivery Services 

Position Title: Lead Mail Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB4, $37,581–$56,368 

Essential Duties of Position: New staff will monitor employees processing commercial carrier packages (e.g. FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) and ensure that proper screening 

procedures are followed at all times. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed by a contractor. The 

current service levels provided by the contractor are inadequate and result in late 

deliveries, incorrect routings, and damaged, lost, and unprocessed items. 

The new position is requested to enable the Senate Post Office to bring the processing of packages in house. We expect that this will result in significantly better 

service. The projected salary cost for one Lead Mail Specialist is $36,000 in fiscal 

year 2007. Cost to the Senate is approximately $50,000 per year, but will result in 

savings in excess of $200,000 annually. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the Senate will continue to experience inadequate service levels, and it will not realize the $200,000 savings that we anticipate. 

The Senate will have to continue contractor support at approximately $470,000 per 

year. Costs and savings represent total amounts for the Package Delivery service. 

Department: Technology Development 

Branch/Section: Systems Development—Enterprise Database Support 

Position Title: Senior Information Technology Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: Pay Band 10, $67,675– 

$101,508 

Essential Duties of Position: New staff will administer Windows System and SQL 

Server Databases. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. Duties are currently being performed by one individual in the Enterprise Database Support group. Significant growth in demand for services and advanced technology implementations of this software have created a critical need for 

additional resources. The same person who performs these duties also ensures continuous systems availability and performs disaster recovery duties. Having only one 

person with the expertise and daily involvement with the underlying architecture 

that supports critical Senate services, such as Senate.gov and the ADMA Blackberry 

backend database, puts the Senate in a precarious position. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, services will continue to be supported, but not 

as rapidly as the demand warrants. In addition, Senate services may be severely 

affected by lack of support if our single existing resource is unavailable. 

Department: Technology Development 

Branch/Section: Enterprise IT Operations—Enterprise Ops 

Position Title: Information Technology Operations Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 3 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB6, $46,395–$69,593 

Essential Duties of Position: New staff will manage current production systems 

that are running at the ACF, such as the enterprise SILO tape backup system, systems failed over to the ACF, and various facility related tasks. Duties also include 
192 

providing first response to problems during emergencies, backing up the primary facility support duties for the 24 X 7 Blackberry server, and monitoring and administering the Senate’s email system and payroll applications. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are being performed by one thinly staffed shift at the 

ACF five days per week. Some of the duties are being conducted remotely and some 

by rotating Primary Computing Facility staff from Postal Square. However, significant gaps exist. 

With the continued evolution of the systems running from the ACF there is a 

need to fully support the ACF with multiple shifts. The ACF is now running key 

services, such as all enterprise backups of critical applications. Transitioning into 

a multi-shift operation, similar to the operation of the primary computing facility, 

is needed to support the continued expansion of workload, and to maintain a continuously efficient operation. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we run the risk of delaying resolution of system 

problems that arise outside of normal business hours. We also run the risk of delaying response time in the case of an emergency, and directly affecting business continuity. 

Department: Technology Development 

Branch/Section: IT Security 

Position Title: Senior Information Security Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 2 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB10, $67,675–$101,508 

Essential Duties of Position: The new staff would collect and analyze data in the 

Security Operations Center and resolve or eliminate anomalies/security events; assist Member offices on network security issues; monitor SAA enterprise systems; improve external contact in order to stay abreast of rapidly changing computer network attack profiles; and make full use of new enterprise-wide security technologies 

deployed this year that allow us to perform activities that were formerly performed 

by contractors. Staff also will provide support and analysis associated with the new 

capabilities in Symantec client software (firewall, anti-spyware/adware, etc.). 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. IT Security currently has staff that performs most of the essential 

duties described, but the staff will not be able to meet the additional demands it 

anticipates. Due to the number of new security initiatives that are the result of increasing threats, the overall workload of the staff continues to grow. Security issues 

and systems are increasingly complex, requiring more time and resources for satisfactory resolution and adequate backup. 

Department: IT Support Services 

Branch/Section: Office Equipment Services—Order Services 

Position Title: Senior Procurement & Supplies Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB 5, $41,756–$62,635 

Essential Duties of Position: New staff will handle wireless device issues including 

provisioning telecommunications/wireless services, providing advanced troubleshooting for major vendors and systems, using a comprehensive understanding of 

multiple product lines and service offerings to provide rate and service plan analysis 

for customers, conducting complete hot swaps, modifying accounts, and providing 

billing support. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed by SAA staff. Senate 

wireless equipment needs have increased dramatically over the past two years and 

the trend is continuing. Although staffing levels have remained the same, Senate 

staff expects wireless equipment to be available immediately. Current resources 

make it extremely difficult to stay abreast of the ordering demands and the programming and tracking of wireless equipment. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the SAA will not be able to fully meet the Senate’s service level expectations. We think that the least costly approach is through 

hiring an additional staff member as opposed to contracting for this support. We do 

not believe that reduced service levels are acceptable to the Senate. 

The pay salary range will be $41,756 to $62,635. When a contractor was approached about the possibility of providing one person to do only some of the duties 

discussed above, their cost estimate was $150,000 to $175,000 per year. 

Department: IT Support Services 
193 

Branch/Section: Desktop/LAN Support—CMS Coordination 

Position Title: Principal Information Technology Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB 11 Pay Range: $73,086– $109,628 

Essential Duties of Position: This position will evaluate and guide vendor development efforts in the areas of Web development, electronic messaging, and electronic 

document management; lead projects, especially those related to constituent e-mail 

processing; be a technical resource for other CMS Coordination staff; and perform 

liaison work with other SAA departments. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These tasks are currently being performed by contract staff that 

has been engaged to provide these capabilities. The new position is being requested 

in order to continue to have access to this level of experience and expertise. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the CMS Coordination group will continue to 

incur the higher cost of contracting out for this position. The CMS Coordination 

group supports the existing model for correspondence management, but in order to 

adapt to the changes that will result from the introduction of new electronic communications capabilities in Senate offices and an anticipated increase in the number 

of CSS vendors, we need additional staff. The new staff must have in-depth expertise in Web form development, electronic messaging, and electronic document management. Because CSS vendors will soon operate within a different, more stringent 

contract structure, existing staff’s time will be fully committed to ensuring contract 

compliance. In addition, existing staff will oversee the e-Newsletter vendor contracts. These activities will require all of the existing CMS Coordination resources. 

The pay range for the new position is $73,086–$109,628. The position is currently 

contracted out at $205,577 per year. 

Department: Process Management & Innovation 

Branch/Section: IT Research & Deployment—Technology Assessment 

Position Title: Principal Information Technology Specialist 

No. of Positions Requested: 2 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB11, $73,086–$109,628 

Essential Duties of Position: The new positions will be responsible for all aspects 

of the Active Directory & Messaging Architect (ADMA) design. All design changes, 

security updates, migration processes, software updates, product upgrades, and addin products, whether part of the core system or peripherally integrated, must go 

through a rigorous design, testing, pilot, and implementation process. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed by on-site contractor staff at an annual cost of approximately $600,000. Replacing these contractors with 

staff will create a significant dollar savings for the Senate and will allow for more 

flexibility in work assignments. These duties will be ongoing for many years to come 

and the recurring annual dollar savings will be over $300,000. 

An additional benefit is continuity of institutional knowledge. On-site contractors 

are subject to periodic personnel changes. When contractors leave, all of the Senatespecific technical and business institutional knowledge leaves with them and there 

is a significant learning curve and negative service impact associated with the replacement of staff. This situation will be avoided by using permanent Senate staff. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: The current cost of on-site contractors performing these duties is approximately 

$600,000 per year. The cost of these FTEs will easily be less than $300,000 resulting 

in at least a $300,000 savings. 

Department: Staff Offices 

Branch/Section: Human Resources 

Position Title: Human Resources Technician 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB5, $41,756–$62,635 

Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will be responsible for scanning personnel records into the personnel records management system, which will be implemented during fiscal year 2006. This staff member also will provide support to the 

HR Administrators in carrying out their labor relations responsibilities with respect 

to the unions representing Capitol Facilities and Recording Studio employees. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. These duties are not being performed now. A vendor has been chosen for the records management system and we are working on an implementation 

plan. Negotiations on Collective Bargaining Agreements are currently underway 
194 

with the two unions representing the Capitol Facilities and Recording Studio employees. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: It would be impossible for the current HR Technician to assume this new workload. If this position is not approved, HR Administrators will be required to assume 

these lower-level responsibilities and the level of service that will be provided to clients will be adversely affected. It will take longer to classify positions, it will take 

longer to fill positions, training activities will be provided less frequently, availability to consult with clients will be affected, etc. In order to accomplish essential 

functions and to meet critical deadlines, we might be required to pay overtime to 

non-exempt staff and to provide compensatory time to other staff. 

Department: Staff Offices 

Branch/Section: Employee Assistance Program 

Position Title: EAP Counselor 

No. of Positions Requested: 1 

Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB9, $62,260–$93,388 

Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will provide comprehensive mental 

health assessment, referral, and follow-up services in the workplace and provide 

counseling and short-term therapy for staff and family members on a wide range 

of sensitive and complex matters. Staff will also counsel supervisors in the recognition and referral of employees with problems and promote good mental health practices through articles, training programs, publications, Web page, etc. 

Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why a new position is requested. The present EAP (staff of two) is trying to cover these duties. 

If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost impact on the Senate: With a reduction in proactive outreach to troubled employees there will be higher turnover, an impact on moral, and, in some cases, an impact on employee productivity. 

STAFFING INCREASE

Senator ALLARD. I want to follow up on that with some other 

questions. If we are not able to provide the increases that you 

asked for, would we get a decrease in services? 

Mr. PICKLE. I think it’s a combination of the two. And the best 

analogy I can use—in 1997, I believe it was, or 1998, there was a 

conscious effort on the part of the Sergeant at Arms to reduce 

FTEs. There was about a 50 FTE reduction that year. By all accounts, from people who are still here and the people we deal with, 

after the reduction, the services that we provided did not meet expectations. September 11 exacerbated the problem. It created additional needs. It created a need for additional staff and additional 

technologies. We will keep plugging away and do the very best job, 

and that will be our goal, but I think there will be some diminishing of services. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we’re looking at the chart here on your 

FTE budget for the Sergeant at Arms, and I see where we had a 

decrease in personnel from 2000 to 2001. 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. And then from there, we have a regular steep 

climb—— 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. In personnel. And so, I would like 

to get back to the 18 that you requested last year. 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Can you tell us the status of those new hires? 

Mr. PICKLE. Out of the 18 positions you gave us last year, 12 

have been filled. The other six have been announced and posted. 

Two of those six had job offers made to them, but they withdrew 

their acceptance and did not come onboard. So, we still have six of 
195 

those which have been posted but not filled. Our dilemma is that 

some of these jobs are of such significance and importance to us 

that we don’t want—especially in the technology area—to take people just to fill the slot. We are looking for the very best. So we may 

penalize ourselves somewhat by not hiring right away, but I think 

that’s the best course of action. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. We want to look at that closely. 

Mr. PICKLE. I understand. 

Senator ALLARD. You have four there that haven’t been filled for 

various reasons, and I assume that that request you made is in addition to the 18 that we provided for last year. 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes, the 34 are in addition. Yes, sir. 

CUSTODIAL WORKERS FOR THE SENATE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

EXPANSION SPACE

Senator ALLARD. Now, there are 17 personnel you have included 

that are supposed to be for cleaning and maintaining the expansion 

space in the Capitol Visitor Center. The Architect of the Capitol, 

if you have noticed his budget, has included $1.5 million for a custodial contract for the entire Capitol Visitor Center. So, it looks 

from our point of view as though there has been a double accounting here. Doesn’t it make sense to let AOC contract out for this requirement? 

Mr. PICKLE. You know, I think in a perfect world, it makes sense 

that we have one organization do everything. It just makes sense. 

The only reason I believe we have a Capitol facilities division that 

does maintenance, is that the Senate was a little unhappy with 

some of the contract work done years ago. It was a decision made 

by whomever was in charge at that time that the maintenance 

functions be put under the Senate, and that’s why we have a Capitol facilities division that does maintenance and cleaning on the 

Senate side of the Capitol. I don’t have any strong feelings on it 

except to say that it’s usually better when you have people who are 

working around the Senate and sensitive information and documents, its better to have people who work for you, who you have 

some control over. You have a much more stable workforce. Now, 

whether this is an in-house workforce under the Architect or under 

us, I really don’t care. I just think that we need to get the best people we can. 

Senator ALLARD. It might be that we have to try a contractor. If 

it doesn’t work out, we could always go back—— 

Mr. PICKLE. Sure. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. The other route. 

Mr. PICKLE. Sure. 

Senator ALLARD. But it’s something we’ll look at, at least. 

Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, you know, I think what—the way we 

envisioned that—and it’s pretty simplistic. We currently maintain 

the Senate wing of the Capitol. What we are going to have in the 

CVC is an expansion of the Senate wing. So, we were just going 

to enlarge our workforce to cover that. But again, whatever makes 

economic sense and is more efficient, we are all for. 
196 

SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Senator ALLARD. The budget for the security and emergency preparedness has grown from $4 million in 2002 to $8.5 million in fiscal year 2006. And there’s another large increase we’re looking at 

for this year—— 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. A total of $18 million. Why are we 

looking at an increase of this magnitude, and can we begin to expect the budget to begin to level out instead of seeing these large 

double-digit increases? 

Mr. PICKLE. It is a large increase at first blush. But I think that 

much of what we have in the area of security has been funded 

since 2002 in part by the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) as well 

as reprogramming that this subcommittee has allowed us to do and 

provided for us. The ERF funds have decreased. We now have 

items that need to be funded on an annual basis, and the supplemental is no longer available. These items have a life cycle to 

them. There are other items which are services and outsourced 

services that we provide here on the Hill—and these are all new 

services since 2001–2002 for the most part and to over 450 State 

offices. So, the job has increased enormously. I would like to say 

there is a moderation, but in all honesty, I don’t see how it’s going 

to moderate much. I think once we have a base, we will try to live 

within that base, and obviously, we will live within what we are 

given. But we simply meet the demands of the Senate, and what 

we are—— 

Senator ALLARD. Have you looked at what funding we have 

picked up in ongoing programs and emergency funding and—how 

many years out we may be looking at before we can stabilize our 

base, assuming that we don’t have any more emergency appropriations? 

Mr. PICKLE. I have not personally, but we will get an answer for 

you on that. 

Senator ALLARD. I think that would be helpful to the committee 

to understand what is happening in that area. 

Mr. PICKLE. We’ll do it. 

TELEPHONE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

Senator ALLARD. Can you give me an update on the status of the 

telephone system replacement and what’s happening there? 

Mr. PICKLE. Last year, this subcommittee provided about $10.5 

million for the telecommunications modernization plan. This year, 

we are asking for another $10.5 million. We are near the completion of our RFP, or request for proposal, that will go out to the different vendors in the communications industry. We are hoping to 

start right away on making some of the changes here, modernization changes. As you know, it’s a lot of money. I think you asked 

me the question last year, will we spend all $10 million in the one 

fiscal year. My answer was probably not. And we were absolutely 

right; we haven’t spent it all. Do we need to do it? We do. The current telephone system is 20 years old. So, and in the past 20 years, 

technology has changed tremendously. The industry is going toward a converged technology where you have a convergence of dig-
197 

ital, video, and voice data. We need to do things such as replace 

switches, replace handsets—all the handsets—we need to make 

sure that our voice mail works, that all of the different wireless devices we have, whether they are Blackberry or cell phones or 

pagers, can be integrated. It’s a big job, and it will take some time. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes, and there are some changing technologies. 

Voice over Internet Protocol—— 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Has the potential to save a lot of 

money, but that technology has to be worked out. There are some 

issues as to the domain that have to be worked out before we get 

those kinds of things, but it means things are getting more competitive. And hopefully, we can hold down costs. 

Mr. PICKLE. Well, they certainly are, and we fully believe that 

the bids that we get will include Voice over Internet protocols. We 

know that the phone industry, the telecommunications industry, 

believes that’s where we are going with telephony. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. Do you still expect the cost to total close to $20 million when we’re all done? 

Mr. PICKLE. To my understanding, approximately $20 million. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, and I am assuming that you are expecting an improvement in service to the end users? 

Mr. PICKLE. Absolutely, yes—my CIO is going to guarantee it. 

MAIL PROCESSING FACILITY

Senator ALLARD. I’m glad they’re here to hear that. Okay, let’s 

talk a little bit about the mail processing facility. What’s the status 

of this facility, and what are your total cost projections there? 

Mr. PICKLE. The mail facility—I believe our total cost is $14.9 

million, some of which has come from the supplemental. We hope 

to have the mail facility completed in the near future. We’re going 

to take one of our remote mail facilities, and move it to another facility here, a little west and north of us. And at the mail facility, 

we are going to be able to do the mail processing and screening, 

as well as the package delivery and screening. So, it will be one 

consolidated location. And we’re within budget, and we’re meeting 

the milestones there. 

VENDOR DELIVERIES

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now, following up on this, the one part 

of it is the process, and the other one is the delivery here to the 

Capitol—— 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. And you’re planning on implementing, on a pilot basis, a new method of transferring deliveries 

(other than mail) to the Capitol. Could you tell me a little bit about 

the status of that pilot project? 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes. Currently the Capitol Police have a remote site. 

They had a permanent site, but they have been forced to move for 

various reasons, and they are at an interim site now. Essentially 

what takes place there is many of the goods which are destined for 

the Capitol are delivered there, they’re examined or screened, and 

then they are transported here to the Capitol. I don’t want to get 

into much more than that if you don’t mind. We are revalidating 
198 

our requirements. We are working closely with the Architect and 

the House and also having discussions with the Library of Congress. What we are proposing to do is create a new transfer model. 

And in very simple terms, what it will do is it will allow us to receive goods and perishables and other items at a remote site. These 

items will be offloaded from vendors trucks. They will be screened 

and examined, and declared safe. They will be put on Government 

trucks and delivered here to the Capitol. There are several advantages to this. First of all, we reduce dramatically the number of 

trucks you see here on the campus, and that’s a big security issue. 

We also have items delivered by trusted employees, Federal employees who have been vetted and had background checks conducted on them. And third, it should save us in damaged goods, 

late goods and perishables, and lost goods. 

Senator ALLARD. Ultimately, that could lead to us having our 

own truck fleet here on the Capitol. 

Mr. PICKLE. It would—yes, but at a very small level. I would 

compare it to something you see at other agencies such as the 

State Department, the White House, or the CIA, very similar. It’s 

a very cost-effective process, I understand, from looking at these 

programs. 

STRATEGIC PLANNING

Senator ALLARD. Now, in your opening comments, you talked 

about trying to meet our interests as far as setting down goals and 

objectives and meeting those. Is this what you refer to as your strategic plan? 

Mr. PICKLE. Strategic plan, yes it is. 

Senator ALLARD. When will you have that available? 

Mr. PICKLE. We should have that—I’m going to look over my 

shoulder—in a month. I got the right answer, yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Well, we’ll look forward to having it in 

a month. 

Mr. PICKLE. Okay, great. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we do look forward to seeing what you 

have put together there. 

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. I don’t believe we have any more questions. I 

want to thank you for your service. 

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you very much. 

Senator ALLARD. I believe you are going to be here for the next 

panel as well. 

Mr. PICKLE. Yes, sir, the next couple, I think. 

Senator ALLARD. So, we’re not going to let you off too easy 

here—— 

Mr. PICKLE. Okay. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. This morning. 

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you, sir. 
(199) 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL POLICE BOARD AND CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER 

HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, FAIA 

CHRIS McGAFFIN, ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. So now we’ll move to the next panel. We have 

before us now the Capitol Police Board. I want to thank all of you 

for your service, and we’re expecting testimony from Mr. Livingood 

and Acting Chief McGaffin. Mr. Livingood. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. You’ll go first, and then we’ll call on Acting 

Chief McGaffin. 

STATEMENT OF WILSON LIVINGOOD

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. With me today are the 

members of the Capitol Police Board—Bill Pickle, Alan Hantman, 

and also with us today is the Acting Chief of Police, Chris 

McGaffin. 

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the subcommittee 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 

providing a safe and secure environment for Members of Congress, 

staff, constituents, and the general public. 

The Capitol Police Board appreciates the opportunity to present 

and discuss the issues and challenges behind the Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. The security challenge confronting 

the U.S. Capitol Police today remains constant and complex. However, it is a challenge the department successfully manages each 

day of the year. 

The Capitol Police Board is acutely aware of the need for fiscal 

restraint. To address the absolute requirement for fiscal restraint, 

we work on a regular basis with the administrative and financial 

team of the Capitol Police in the exercise of appropriate financial 

management in all areas and divisions of the department. In addition, we have been judicious in the new initiatives we included in 

our request. The goal is methodical and consistent fiscal management. 

In keeping with prior conference committee directives, good management of our core process, and maximum utilization of our work-
200 

force, the Capitol Police has made a concerted effort to contract out 

activities that would benefit from outsourcing. Our fiscal year 2007 

budget submission includes proposals for continuing funding for 

these outsourced activities as well as proposals for new outsourced 

activities. This will allow the U.S. Capitol Police to more fully concentrate on its core security mission. 

It is that core mission for which 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 a variety of threats we face today. It is an extremely difficult job to manage a legislative complex completely open to the public while at the 

same time ensuring the safety of the Congress, staff, and visitors 

against increased threats. It is a job the U.S. Capitol Police perform with skill and excellence everyday. 

The men and women of the Capitol Police have the Board’s greatest respect. We speak to them every day, and we listen to them. 

Each one considers it an honor to protect, serve, and welcome our 

citizens and people from around the world to our Nation’s Capital 

who come to participate in the legislative process, to witness democracy in action, and partake in the history of this unique place. 

ACCOLADE TO DEPARTING CHIEF GAINER

Today is Chief Gainer’s final day with the U.S. Capitol Police. I 

know I speak for all the members of the Capitol Police Board when 

I extend my deepest thanks to him for his services to the Capitol 

Police department and to the Congress. Chief Gainer is first and 

always a cop’s cop. Through his leadership, the capabilities of the 

department have been greatly enhanced. Every person who works 

here or visits here is a beneficiary of his hard work, dedication, and 

professionalism. We wish him well and the very best as he begins 

the next phase in his career. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILSON LIVINGOOD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you 

today to discuss the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. With me 

today are the members of the Capitol Police Board, William Pickle, Senate Sergeant 

at Arms, and Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol. Christopher McGaffin, the 

Acting Chief of Police is also with us. 

Before I begin Mr. Chairman, 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 providing 

a safe and secure environment for Members of Congress, staff, and the general public. 

The Capitol Police Board appreciates this opportunity to present and discuss the 

issues and challenges behind the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

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. 

The Capitol Police Board is acutely aware of the need for fiscal restraint. To address the absolute requirement for fiscal restraint, we work on a regular basis with 

the administrative and financial team of the Capitol Police in the exercise of appropriate financial management in all areas and divisions of the Department. In addition, we have been judicious in the new initiatives we included in our request. The 

goal is methodical and consistent fiscal management. 

In keeping with prior conference Committee directives, good management of our 

core process and maximum utilization of our workforce, the U.S. Capitol Police has 
201 

made a concerted effort to contract out activities that would benefit from 

outsourcing. Our fiscal year 2007 budget submission includes proposals for continuing funding for these outsourced activities as well as proposals for new 

outsourced activities. This will allow the U.S. Capitol Police to more fully concentrate on its core security mission. 

It is that core mission for which 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 completely open to the public, while at 

the same time ensuring the safety of the Congress, staff, and visitors against increased dangers. It is a job performed with skill. 

The men and women of the Capitol Police have my greatest respect. I speak to 

them every day, and I listen to them. 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. 

Mr. Chairman, 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 Acting Chief McGaffin who will present the Capitol 

Police’s fiscal year 2007 Budget in more detail. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you for your statement. And now, 

we’ll go to Acting Chief McGaffin. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MC GAFFIN

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to tell you also 

that it’s an honor to appear before this subcommittee today with 

the Capitol Police Board and to represent the United States Capitol 

Police in this hearing. We are here to present our fiscal year budget for 2007, but I am also here to thank you, the Senate and this 

subcommittee for all the support that it’s given us over the years. 

I’ll finish 34 years of service to the United States Capitol Police 

and to the Congress this July, and I have watched this police department grow and professionalize over these several decades significantly because of the support of Members of Congress and the 

United States Senate like yourself, sir. And if I can take this moment to thank you personally for all that you have done for this 

police department, the men and women of this police department— 

those who are still here serving with me and those who have retired over the last several decades, I’d like to do that as well. I 

have submitted remarks and my testimony for the record, and I am 

very much looking forward to answering questions you may pose 

today. 

Senator ALLARD. We’ll make those remarks part of the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MCGAFFIN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before the Appropriations Committee today to discuss the United States 

Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. The United States Capitol Police 

maintains the honor of protecting the Congress, its legislative process, as well as 

staff and visitors from harm. We protect and secure Congress so it can fulfill its constitutional responsibilities in a safe and open environment. As the foremost symbol 

of American representative democracy, 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. It is the duty of the men 

and women of the Capitol Police to do all in our power to prevent these acts and, 

if such acts, should occur, to respond appropriately to ensure the safety and well 

being of our stakeholders. 
202 

The employees of the Unites States Capitol Police are dedicated to their work and 

thus we as a team have had significant accomplishments in the past year, including: 

—Greeted and screened over 8.7 million staff and visitors throughout the Capitol 

Complex and screened over 59,500 people for three holiday events; conducted 

over 17,000 canine explosive detection sweeps; coordinated over 3,300 special 

events and dignitary visits; screened over 85,000 vehicles and 72,000 individuals at the Capitol Visitors Center as work proceeded uninterrupted; screened 

over 574,000 vehicles by the TIGER Team; conducted 136 physical security assessments; and performed 521 electronic countermeasures assessments as well 

as other protective functions. 

—Gained re-accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA). This repeated, independent, outside validation of 

our preparation and compliance with national standards clearly affirms our 

Strategic Plan, strength of policies, training, operational readiness and overall 

professionalism and indicates that the USCP has achieved a level of excellence 

and has internalized positive change. 

—Implemented a new financial management system in 12 months, on time and 

within budget, for the first time in the history of the Department. 

—Developed a strategy and identified requirements and business processes for the 

implementation of the Asset Management System which will bring greater accountability and control over assets within the Department, as well as, 

launched the first steps to align the Department’s internal controls with government-wide standards. 

In the 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 USCP over the past several years, 

with the support of Congress, has made significant investments in human capital 

and Department infrastructure. This has been accomplished by 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 capabilities for explosive devices as well as chemical and biological agents, 

and augmenting our incident command and emergency response and notification 

systems. Each of these and their related activities has come with high resource requirements for maintenance in order to ensure that our systems are operational 24/ 

7. The majority of these infrastructure investments were funded with emergency, 

supplemental or reprogrammed prior year funding and now require annual, ongoing operational maintenance and life cycle replacement. 

Our fiscal year 2007 budget request of $295.1 million represents an increase of 

$48.1 million or 19.5 percent over the enacted amount for fiscal year 2006, adjusted 

for rescissions. This includes an increase of $31.4 million for personnel costs and 

$16.7 million for non-personnel costs. However, when the $10 million from the noyear reprogramming of funds, approved by your Committee, was used to support fiscal year 2006 operational requirements, is taken into consideration the requested 

increase is $38.1 million or 14.8 percent. 

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 5 years, the Department has grown in human capital, security infrastructure, command and control 

and, security and law enforcement capability. The Department has a tremendous 

base of capabilities, which requires substantial resources to maintain. The intent of 

this budget request is to address targeted 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. 

New initiatives in our fiscal year 2007 budget request include additional personnel resources for both sworn and civilian; outsourcing background and polygraph 

functions in Human Resources, Information Systems maintenance and replacement 

systems, operating costs for the Office of Inspector General as well as the new Office 

of Professional Responsibility; new costs for activities acquired from other agencies 

such as maintenance of the radio communications systems transferred from the Senate and certain security equipment maintenance from the Department of Defense. 

The following represents a more detailed look at the USCP fiscal year 2007 request. 
203 

Personnel.—The fiscal year request for salaries of $246,700,000 supports the current authorized FTE levels, as well as, an additional request of 91 new officer FTEs 

for critical operational requirements, 10 additional FTEs for Library of Congress 

(LOC) attrition and seven new civilian support positions. With the new officers, the 

sworn FTE level is 1,759. The revised civilian FTE level is 421 for a total Department FTE count of 2,180. Included in the personnel budget is a request for overtime. Staffing levels are driven by security needs and augmented by overtime to 

meet operational requirements. The 494,700 hours requested consist of 449,300 

hours for sworn and 45,400 hours for civilians. The $28.1 million request is based 

on estimated overtime posting and coverage requirements and approximate costs for 

sworn manpower shortage, late sessions of Congress, Special events, security alerts, 

arrests and court time and a small amount of civilian overtime requirements. 

Non-Personnel.—The fiscal year request for non-personnel items is $48,383,000. 

The following highlights the majority of the non-personnel request for the USCP. —$16,900,000 is for Physical Security.—This includes contractual support for 

physical security maintenance and support projects such as comprehensive preventive maintenance to support the maintenance, repair and preventive maintenance of the security systems on the Capitol Complex on a 24/7 basis. Included 

are security installation support, security network, and specialized security 

equipment; the camera system, vehicle barriers, and the annunciators; maintenance of security equipment such as current CCTV equipment, Digital Video 

Recorder, metal detectors and X-ray packages; Life Cycle Replacement of equipment such as Duress Alarms for Members and Committees; Card Access and 

Intrusion Alarms. —$11,232,000 is for Information and Communication.—This includes maintenance, repair, licensing and support of new and existing systems such as engineering professional services and radio systems contract support, annual contracts supporting Blackberry and Nextel devices and fit out of the radio van. 

Information Systems modernization Phase III includes systems such as the 

Asset Management System, Case Management system and Web portal system; 

Lifecycle replacement for such items as Personal Computers due to be replaced, 

radio support, Nextels, Verizon phones, purchase and refreshment of Police Radios. —$4,318,000 is for Protective Services.—This will provide appropriate travel related funding for the Dignitary Protection Division (DPD) to ensure the safety 

and security of the Congressional Leadership and other Congressional 

Protectees. The funding for the last 3 years has required reprogramming each 

year to meet costs. Travel increases are related to fuel costs, rental cars and 

hotel costs. External training is requested for protective operations. —$2,916,000 is for Human Resource Management.—This provides for contractual 

services for Human Resources Management such as the National Finance Center for payroll administration; AVUE, which is the HR Management system; 

Time and Attendance System Programming and employee training (Workbrain 

system) and the outsourcing of 6 sworn staff for the Background check and polygraph function. This will free up the 6 sworn officers to be put back in to the 

field and will offset the number of new positions required for the CVC. This request also includes $400,000 for tuition reimbursement for USCP employees. 

—$2,731,000 is for Financial Management and Accountability.—This includes contractual support for the Office of Financial Management including Audit and 

Review Services, Outsourcing contract support and a cross servicing agreement 

for the financial management system. This line item also includes funding for 

agency wide projects such as copier maintenance, vehicle fuel and tort claims. 

—$2,664,000 is for Logistic Support.—This includes funding for refreshment of 

uniforms, purchase of new uniforms for new recruits and other officers such as 

K–9 and CERT officers. Funding is also requested for maintenance and repair 

of the Police vehicle fleet. 

—$786,000 Hazardous Incident Response.—This represents replacement of a bomb 

suit for hazardous devices. Also includes maintenance for such items as radiological and biological detectors and hazardous material equipment, life cycle replacement and purchase of required equipment and supplies for the hazardous 

material response team to comply with OSHA and other safety standards. 

In keeping with prior Conference Committee directives, good management of our 

core processes and maximum utilization of our workforce, the USCP has made concerted efforts to contract out activities that are conducive to outsourcing. Our fiscal 

year 2007 budget submission includes our proposals for continuing funding for these 

outsourced activities as well as proposals for new outsourced activities, allowing the 

USCP to concentrate on its expertise. The 2007 request includes outsourcing services in the amount of $20.4 million, which includes information technology, physical 
204 

security systems and maintenance, administration, background and polygraph services, veterinarian services, security control operators, financial asset management 

system, accounts payable, and installation of equipment. 

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 and the attainment of that goal depends, in part, on having the right people, the right strength and the right numbers, 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 enable our 

officers to have the tools necessary to do their jobs. Additionally, the Department’s 

officials routinely participate in a wide-range of tabletop exercises with top experts 

in federal, state and local law enforcement. 

As Acting Chief of the Capitol Police, I take great pride in the many years of service this Department has provided to the Congress. Building on that legacy, we at 

the USCP look forward to continuing to safeguard the Congress, staff, and visitors 

to the Capitol Complex during these challenging times. In addition, we look forward 

to working with the Congress and particularly this Committee. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and am ready to address 

any questions you may have. 

ACCOLADE FOR U.S. CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT

Senator ALLARD. Did you give your full statement, Mr. 

Livingood? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. It’s been submitted for the record, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I would just like to say like so many Members, 

I visit the Capitol at all hours. It might be in the middle of the 

night or 6:30 in the morning. But I have always felt like security 

was working well and always felt like I was treated in a courteous 

and helpful manner, and we appreciate that. I think on behalf of 

all of the Members, I would just like to thank you. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN Thank you, sir. 

EXPLANATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASES

Senator ALLARD. Now, the Capitol Police Board is requesting 

close to an increase of 20 percent over the current year. If you look 

at the reprogramming of funds last year, it’s closer to 15 percent. 

Could you explain why the board believes we need to have an increase of this magnitude? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Thank you, sir. As you noted, approximately $10 million of our request that’s being expended in this fiscal year in fact came from no year or supplemental funding. So, it 

does reduce, in one measurement, the overall request, as you pointed out, and I thank you for recognizing that. I would say that there 

are two major drivers for the increase. Under the FTE increase, as 

you noted earlier, we’re asking for 101 more FTEs in our sworn 

ranks, and we’re asking for 7 additional FTEs in our civilian administrative ranks. These FTE increases on the sworn side are 
205 

principally required in terms of supporting the Capitol Visitor Center, and that’s what we see as a mission expansion for us in this 

coming fiscal year. The subcommittee has provided funding in fiscal year 2006 for 45 positions to help us provide the adequate security for the CVC. We are also moving a number of security posts 

from Capitol division assignments into the CVC, which are no 

longer going to be necessary once the CVC is open. But we still 

have a shortfall of approximately 63 FTEs, which we’re asking for 

in the fiscal year 2007 budget. In addition to that, we are asking 

for an increase of approximately 11 FTEs for our dignitary protection division, and these are the men and women who are assigned 

to protect the congressional leaders in the Senate and in the 

House. In the past year, they have been operating at a staffing 

level of about 82 percent, and that division alone has the highest 

per capita cost for overtime than any element within the police department. We have not dropped protection for these leaders at all, 

but it is being incurred at the expense of additional duty. So, we 

are asking for an increase there. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ATTRITION AND OTHER NEW POSITION

REQUESTS

The Library of Congress attrition numbers that we have asked 

for over the last several years include an FTE increase of 10. And 

then finally, we are asking for an increase of approximately 17 

FTEs to augment our counterterrorism initiatives as they repel and 

thwart any operational or planning initiatives which may be 

brought to this complex via the number one threat that we see vehicle-born improvised explosive devices. That group, which is referred to as a Tiger Team, is being managed exclusively out of 

overtime funds as well. Moving from the salary account, or staying 

within the salary account, sir, additional duty, the overtime requests have increased as well. And as I pointed out, the number 

of personnel that we have to apply to all the duties and responsibilities we have in this fiscal year we have to augment with additional duty. And as we schedule ahead, as we look ahead to requirements that are expanding, as well as holding steady into 

2007, we see a need to increase our request for additional duty. 

NONPERSONNEL INCREASES

Systems maintenance and communication systems are the other 

area that are driving this budget up. And such areas that insist on 

this maintenance, such as our financial systems, our information 

technology systems, and our security systems are requiring some 

additional funding as well. Now having said that, we are working 

diligently with your staff to reduce this request for markup, and we 

have applied, with the help of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others, some strategies that we think will successfully reduce this request for fiscal year 2007. And I hope to come 

back to you, and expect to come back to you through your staff very 

soon with a lower request in several of the areas that we just identified. 
206 

TIGER TEAM AND DIGNITARY PROTECTION DIVISION NEW POSITIONS

DISCUSSED

Senator ALLARD. I’d like to now follow up on the 28 new officers 

you have requested. As I understand it 11 of those FTE are for the 

dignitary protection detail, and the remaining would be the 17—for 

your Tiger Team. What is driving the increases in those two areas? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Yes, sir. The dignitary protection division where we have asked for an increase of 11 is being driven 

principally by the amount of overtime that we have had to work 

to maintain security for 10 leaders of Congress. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Yes, sir, and the 17 that are assigned 

to the Tiger Team are the counterterrorist group that I have described that are positioned around the Capitol grounds at intersections who conduct random checks of vehicles traversing the 

grounds. This group is one that we are taking another look at because we have been funding that out of additional duty. And with 

cooperation with your staff, we are going to see if there is a cost 

benefit that can be achieved by reducing that 17 on the FTE side 

of the ledger and bringing some efficiencies where we can find additional duty to offset that as we have been doing up to this point. 

REDUCTION IN POLICE OVERTIME EXPLAINED

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. How have you managed your reduction in overtime? I remember in last year’s budget we had set some 

caps on how much overtime you could pay. Are you confident we 

are not incurring any additional risks as a result of the reduction 

in overtime funds? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Well, first, we are very grateful for the 

funding for additional duty and overtime the subcommittee has 

supported us with, and I can tell you that we are going to stay 

within our budget this fiscal year. One of the methods that we are 

employing right now to ensure that we stay within budget now and 

ideally confined a manner in which to lower our request for additional duty and overtime in the fiscal year 2007 budget request is 

the result of some great collaboration that we have entered into 

with the Government Accountability Office. Staff and support from 

that agency has assisted us in developing what we call a threat 

matrix. And just to quickly describe that, what we have been able 

to do with the help of the GAO is to apply criticality factors to 

every single post that we have, every single job that we perform 

up here. And those criticality factors are allowing us to identify 

where our critical needs are versus where our ideally positioned 

needs are. 

So, in other words, in assessing everything that we are doing, 

we’re understanding what are the most important posts that have 

to be manned each day. Now, one of the byproducts of this review 

was that we have discovered some efficiencies that we have been 

able to achieve already where we found there were some posts that 

were being performed by two elements within the police department, which we were able to fold into one. And that kind of analysis is allowing us to stay within our budget this year, and it’s the 
207 

same analysis that’s going to allow us to—I’m optimistic—successfully reduce our additional duty requests for next year. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I want to compliment you on working 

with the GAO and helping to set some priorities there. I think that 

helps the Members to understand where they want to be as far as 

risk and what level of security they want to have. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Thank you, sir. 

DISCUSSION ON COMP TIME BALANCE REDUCTION

Senator ALLARD. On the comp time, what is the status of reducing comp time balances within the department such that no more 

than 240 hours will be carried over from one year to the next? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. We have conducted an audit of all exempt employees of the police department to determine how many 

have comp time balances in excess of 240 hours. Approximately 62 

of the 200 plus exempt employees of the department find themselves in that category. What we have done is to develop and administer an internal control system in which without interrupting 

any of the management oversight, without interrupting any of the 

supervisory responsibilities that these 62 members would bring to 

the day-to-day job. All comp time balances will be reduced to the 

240 mark by the end of this year, and there is absolutely no expectation on the part of any of us that we would carry more than 240 

hours into the next leave calendar year. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, the carryover from one year to the next, 

is that manageable? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. I guarantee we are going to manage this 

down, yes, sir. And we have found ourselves in this situation for 

several different reasons, but the most pressing one is all the work 

that all of us have been performing over these last several years. 

And as we find opportunities to take time off and to enjoy some of 

the comp time, we are doing it. But the fact of the matter is that 

many managers, including myself, will never be able to use all the 

comp time that we have on the books, and that just goes with the 

job. 

Senator ALLARD. Goes with being a manager. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I’m not a clock watcher either, and I understand. But we are going to get this issue resolved by what date do 

you anticipate, or what time line? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. It will be resolved within this leave calendar year. And if I am not mistaken, I believe by January 6, 2007, 

at the end of the last pay period in this leave calendar year, everyone’s balance will be where it needs to be. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MERGE PROGRESS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. Now, what is the status in detailing 

officers from the Capitol Police to the Library of Congress, and has 

progress been made in the last year in improving the police operation at the library? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Mr. Chairman, we currently have 31 

Capitol Police officers assigned to the Library of Congress. That includes an inspector and most recently, two sergeants who have 

been assigned as part of that complement. As you know, within our 
208 

budget request, we request authorization to fill vacancies that 

occur due to attrition in the Library of Congress, and that’s what 

we are doing again this year. The role that our officers are providing to the Library is to augment their security, and I must say 

they have. The inspector, Tom Reynolds, has just done a magnificent job making the Library of Congress feel part of the Capitol Police and the Capitol Police feeling part of the Library of Congress. 

In the area of operations, we have run evacuation drills, we have 

run training programs for their managers, for their supervisors, 

such things as motorcycle training and patrol techniques. We have 

included the Library of Congress police department in our own department’s award ceremony, and we are all working together. 

There are some bumps in the road, not to avoid those or not to 

think about those, but we are doing well. 

SCREENING VEHICLES AT LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Senator ALLARD. Well, one area that has been called to my attention is the screening of the vehicles going to the Library of Congress, and the information I’m getting is that this is not sufficiently 

thorough. Have you looked at this, and do you believe this is something that we ought to address? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Yes, sir, we have looked at this, and we 

are right now examining the feasibility of bringing the Library of 

Congress delivery system—delivery requirements within our own 

offsite delivery center. Right now, we process somewhere in the 

area of about—on average, 80 trucks a day that come through the 

interim offsite delivery center, and the Library has requested to 

utilize that center for deliveries to its building complex as well. 

And we are making some recommendations to the Capitol Police 

Board, which will be reviewed and considered by that group to 

work toward ensuring that the security of the Library of Congress 

is just as great as this office building here. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you think you can get something to us in 

about 30 days or so on the cost estimate of the revised plan? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. We’d need that for our budget purposes. And so, 

if we can have the Board act and get back to us within that time 

period, we would appreciate it. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Yes, sir. 

CAPITOL POLICE GENERAL COUNSEL DISCUSSION

Senator ALLARD. In regard to the Capitol Police general counsel: 

Why do we need additional counsel, and why is the current general 

counsel on the payroll of the House of Representatives? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. There has been a remarkable increase 

in the work that counsel has had to perform. In the several years 

that I have been in an executive position, I have seen this work increase dramatically. I personally bring a lot of work to that office. 

We have assigned counsel to our Office of Professional Responsibility to assist us in the areas of discipline. We have assigned work 

to our Office of Employment Counsel regarding performance and 

performance evaluations of our own personnel. The workload simply has increased. Now, we are undertaking a review with the Capitol Police Board to determine where those positions need to be. 
209 

Senator ALLARD. Now, is there any other position in the Capitol 

Police force that’s not on the Capitol Police force, but on that of either the House or Senate? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Not that I’m aware of, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. The answer’s no? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. I don’t believe there are any other positions, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I see that Mr. Pickle is indicating that 

he doesn’t believe there is any. So, this is an exception to what we 

ordinarily have before us. 

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RESPONSIBILITIES

In 2000, legislation was enacted that created the Chief Administrative Officer for the Capitol Police in order to address long-standing administrative problems in the department. Then in 2002, the 

CAO issued a plan, as required by law, to carry out the Chief Administrative Officer’s responsibilities. Now, while improvements 

have been made, the U.S. Capitol Police still does not have 

auditable financial statements or a comprehensive foundation for 

financial management according to the Government Accountability 

Office. And now, Mr. Stamilio, what are the most significant areas 

still to be addressed from the CAO Act, and the biggest challenges 

you face in meeting those requirements? 

[The information follows:] 

Since becoming an independent agency in fiscal year 2003, the Capitol Police has 

made significant strides in creating a solid foundation for financial management and 

becoming a fully functioning, best practices financial management operation We 

have, this fiscal year, implemented, on time and within budget, a full scale, predominately paperless, JFMIP compliant financial management system, report all financial transactions to the U.S. Treasury, have identified core competencies for all 

financial management staff and tied those competencies to individual development 

plans for all financial management staff. We have also finalized a total of 95 financial management policies and procedures as well as instituted a risk management 

plan and assessment tool for evaluating internal controls within financial management operations. Additionally, we have received reports on our internal controls 

from our external auditors, a practice that is highly encouraged but not required. 

We also manage travel, purchase and fleet card programs and maintain robust 

monitoring programs for the travel and purchase card programs to ensure proper 

use of the cards. In addition, we have implemented a paperless, on-line, just in time 

process for the ordering of office supplies to reduce costs by eliminating central storage and reducing inventory. We pay travel claims in an average of 4 days and have 

established and maintain standard contract formats, terms, conditions and clauses 

and as a practice. We prepare a semi annual statement of disbursements that reports all payment activity for all funds and recently redesigned our budget execution 

process to, for the first time, manage the budget in the manner in which it was formulated and ties the budget to the strategic planning process. This provides greater 

transparency to the operations of the Department as well as provides managers 

with more robust tools with which to manage operations and make decisions. 

We anticipate that with the implementation of the asset management system, the 

completion of a full set of audited financial statements, and the ongoing review of 

internal controls through implementation of our risk management plan, and the ongoing review and generation of policies and procedures, we will be nearly complete 

with our transition. While we currently do not produce a full set of federal financial 

statements, we do produce one of the statements, a Statement of Budgetary Resources, which is audited by an external audit firm and has received an unqualified 

opinion for all audits completed. We thank the Committee for your support of our 

initiatives to this point and look forward to reporting that we have reached our goal 

in the new future. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. I’ll ask Tony to come forward. Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to point out, because he may be a little too 
210 

modest to do this himself, some of the success that his office has 

achieved—you’re absolutely right. In 2002, the Chief Administrative Officer plan called for a follow-up in 21 areas of responsibility. 

This included 71 discreet actions that he was responsible for following up on. And of that, only seven remain open as we sit here 

today. And of those seven, we expect only three to remain open by 

the end of this fiscal year. I would suspect that Mr. Stamilio would 

talk to your subcommittee and your staff about some of the success 

he has had in implementing a financial management system or a 

new budget system, IT systems. And there’s a performance system 

that we have in our police department now for executives and employees that is long overdue, and he and his staff have put together 

one of the most dynamic communications and evaluations systems 

that any law enforcement agency that I’m familiar with has. And 

these are all part of the plan that originated in 2002, and that has 

been rolled up into his own business plan and part of our strategic 

plan. So, there’s great news in the work that he has brought to this 

endeavor. 

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ACTION PLAN

Senator ALLARD. Well, I am particularly interested in the action 

plan. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Tony. 

Mr. STAMILIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. As Chief McGaffin pointed out, as did you, the 

legislation that provided for a Chief Administrative Officer and a 

plan—resulted actually in a plan that was built in 2001 and again 

revised in 2002. As we reviewed the specific actions required of 

that plan that was obviously initiated by the department, there are 

only seven major actions that are left, three of which I don’t expect 

to be accomplished by the end of this fiscal year. Those three include the documenting of our policies and procedures. Now, this is 

a significant undertaking. If I could just put that piece in context 

for you because I think it’s a significant challenge. 

First off, it’s not that the department has not documented its 

policies and procedures because it certainly has and continues to 

do so. We have more work to do in this area. When we have built 

procedures to put in place the types of controls that we need to 

have and now we’re in the business of documenting those and incorporating those into our general orders process. I anticipate that 

that will probably take somewhere between 3 and 6 months beyond 

the end of the fiscal year to a point that I could come back to you 

and say I feel like our body of documentation of our policies and 

procedures is sufficient and supports an operation. So, that’s one 

area that remains and quite frankly, will continue as policy and 

procedure must continually be updated. But it’s one that clearly 

has our focus. And with the support of GAO, we have got some increased focus in terms of the level of specificity required there. The 

second two areas that will not be accomplished by the end of this 

fiscal year include implementing the cost accounting system and 

complete financial statements. 
211 

IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In both of those two initiatives, we made a conscious decision to 

delay work on those and instead pull forward, with obviously significant financial support from the Congress, the implementation of 

our financial management system. That’s a very significant 

achievement because included in that system are many of the internal controls and the processes that we have been doing manually that are now part of the automated system. I’m proud to say 

that our Office of Financial Management and Office of Information 

Systems has put that in place inside a year under budget and that 

is our system of record and has been through the entire fiscal year. 

A companion to that system is something that is a work in 

progress, and that is the asset management system. Again, with 

the support of Congress, the finances are available. It was impossible from a management perspective to field both of those systems 

at the same time. 

And so, we offset the implementation of one with the other. The 

requirements of the asset management system are built. The policy 

and procedures have been drafted, and we are in the implementation stage of the asset management system at this point in time 

and anticipate that that will be operating probably by the end of 

this fiscal year at the latest, or at least phase one of that will be 

operating. With a solid financial management system and a solid 

asset management system, we will be in a much better posture to 

be prepared to do clean financial statements. And in fact, that is 

our goal. And so, the decision to delay was to posture us to be in 

a position to be able to do that. 

SUMMARY OF REMAINING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER INITIATIVES

Senator ALLARD. So, let me just summarize this. We have 11 left. 

Mr. STAMILIO. No sir, we have seven left. 

Senator ALLARD. Oh, seven left. And then, you’re going to have 

four of those seven completed, you think, by the end of this fiscal 

year. 

Mr. STAMILIO. Yes, sir. That’s correct. 

Senator ALLARD. And then, the three remaining that you will 

have after this year will be documentation, then the cost accounting system, and then the asset management system. 

Mr. STAMILIO. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, those are really important aspects, probably the meat of the whole thing in those last three. 

Mr. STAMILIO. The third being the financial statements, yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. STAMILIO. Now—— 

Senator ALLARD. The asset management is in the cost accounting 

area? 

Mr. STAMILIO. No, the asset management provides us the capability to value our fixed assets and—— 

Senator ALLARD. Sure, that’s in inventory. 

Mr. STAMILIO [continuing]. Prepare a balance sheet that would 

withstand the scrutiny of an external audit. And so, that is a component that will put us in a position where we can have clean financial statements. 
212 

Senator ALLARD. And when do you think you’ll have all this in 

place for there not to be a problem with an external audit? 

Mr. STAMILIO. Our target is to have clean financial statements 

at the end of fiscal year 2008. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. So 2 years down the road is what you’re 

looking at? 

Mr. STAMILIO. Yes, sir. At this point. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. STAMILIO. And depending on our ability to fully implement 

and have confidence in the asset management system, we may be 

able to push that up, but I’m very confident that by the end of fiscal year 2008, we will have clean financial statements. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, obviously there needs to be functional systems and they need to be accurate. They are very important systems, particularly from an oversight standpoint. 

Mr. STAMILIO. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

USCP advances in the Administrative Arena start in the area of Human Capital. 

First, the Performance Evaluation and Communication System (PECS) was implemented and training for it was completed. This is a competency-based personnel 

performance management system and is linked to Departmental goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan. 

Second, USCP’s personnel information system modernization is well underway. 

Accomplishments include: AVUE Implementation: Phase I accomplished for the 

Data Accuracy/Integrity Project (Workbrain Organizational. alignment and Reporting), enhanced WorkBrain Reporting for Overtime; employee Self-Service implemented and a Customer Resource Center established. 

A third advance toward this Human Capital goal is in the area of training. We 

shifted focus of Entry-Level and In-Service Training from traditional enforcement to 

Security Operations and Intelligence Training. Specifically, scenario-based training 

has been implemented, a security screening certification program has been approved, and recruit officer curriculum review was completed. 

We have also gained ground on our Strategic Objective entitled ‘‘Leveraging technology to improve productivity.’’ The point of this objective is to provide responsive, 

high quality, cost-effective information technology services and solutions in a timely 

manner. Strategic Initiatives that support this objective include developing and 

maintaining an Enterprise Architecture to align business requirements and information technology investments across USCP, and modernize business systems, including transitioning to a target architecture comprised of interoperable systems 

and applications, provide browser-enabled access to all USCP applications, utilize 

Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) technology to implement renovated applications 

and provide a phased approach to implementing target architecture. 

With regard to leveraging technology, the first step is to maintain and keep operational the installed Base of Information Technology (IT) Systems. This initiative 

encompasses the operation, maintenance and continued development of major systems critical to USCP operations: Computer Aided Dispatch, Time and Attendance, 

Records/Document Management Network Infrastructure, MAXIMO, Livescan 

Fingerprinting, Senate PERS, Radio Support Infrastructure, Microsoft Outlook 

(email), MS Windows 2000 Suite. 

We can report that all projects are on track and milestones are being achieved 

to support this initiative. 

A second step (in leveraging technology) is to complete the modernization of Administrative and Law Enforcement Programs.’’ On this front, progress has been particularly strong for supporting Computer Aided Dispatch, Reports Processing and 

the Momentum Financial Management System (FMS). 

USCP has made progress to gain accreditation and certification of major systems 

in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). 

USCP annually assesses risk, certifies and accredits major systems, once every 

three years, using a third party vendor, and is audited annually as part of the financial audit—as well as 6 month reviews by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO). USCP is in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management 

Act (FISMA). OIS identifies personnel with significant information system security 

roles and responsibilities, documents those roles and responsibilities, and provides 
213 

appropriate information system security training before authorizing access to the 

system. During fiscal year 2005, various tools and techniques were used to monitor 

events on the information systems to detect attacks, and provide identification of 

unauthorized use of the system. Using a third party, USCP used appropriate vulnerability scanning tools and techniques to scan for vulnerabilities. 

A great deal of progress was made regarding Enterprise Architecture (EA). 95 

percent of our systems are compliant with EA and this supports our strategic objective: ‘‘To provide responsive, high quality, cost-effective information technology services and solutions in a timely manner.’’ We completed (and submitted for GAO review) our EA plan (version 3). In addition, we drafted an EA version 4 with case 

management and asset management systems included. Finally, the Department 

aligned the IT Strategic Plan to the USCP Strategic Plan using the ProVision modeling tool. 

The Department developed and maintained an electronic document and records 

management system that is secure and quickly accessible (Hummingbird document 

management system). In addition, we developed and implemented a training plan 

for 625 personnel on the ways of Hummingbird, record management policy, and 

records disposition. 

There have been several accomplishments as regards our strategic objective for 

Financial Management—to provide timely, reliable, and responsible financial management services, and ensure accountability for assets and resources. 

First, we have been able to formulate, submit and execute a USCP Budget, consistent with our strategic plan and congressional direction. As far as improving our 

budget execution, progress included: meeting with Bureaus/Offices throughout fiscal 

year 2005 to review spending plans; developing list of fiscal year 2005 unfunded 

items and identified savings sufficient to fund many of these items; and developing 

and submitting fiscal year 2006 spending plan to committees. 

USCP has responsibly managed the Department-wide acquisition processes and 

procedures in accordance with applicable principles of law and authorities. Specifically we have completed implementation of the purchase card program and initiated 

a fleet card pilot program. 

We have performed all planning and preparatory work necessary for the new financial management system, Momentum, to become operational on October 5, 2005. 

The Department also trained 95 percent of Momentum users and hired two new systems accountants. 

As regards Asset Management—accomplishments included the following: completed requirements definition of asset management project; completed on-site assessment of ‘‘as-is’’ asset management flows; identified definitive set of 629 user requirements; analyzing and evaluating asset management best practices to steer development of USCP’s policies and procedures; analyzing business process reengineering for USCP’s Property Management Program; analyzing ‘‘to-be’’ asset 

management flows; analyzing feasibility of a phased-in implementation approach; 

and updated Enterprise Architecture to reflect Asset Management. 

We have made significant progress on implementing programs to assure compliance with environmental, safety/OSHA regulations. For example, we have established Mishap Reporting Procedures and new data collection software for tracking 

and trending on-the-job injuries. Also we have developed a program to identify, document and correct workplace hazards. Of the more than 500 identified safety deficiencies by the Office of Compliance during the 108th Congress in USCP occupied 

spaces, 100 percent of USCP action items were abated. Successfully abated over 350 

safety deficiencies in USCP occupied spaces. We also successfully established a Safety Awareness Program. 

In other logistics areas we have improved warehouse inventory management, updated and revised internal standard operating procedures and improved our preventative maintenance system. 

DISCUSSION ON NEW POLICE CHIEF SELECTION STATUS

Senator ALLARD. I would encourage you to keep on it and keep 

up the work. Now, Mr. Livingood, where are we in finding a new 

chief for the department, and what time frame do you think we are 

looking at for a hire there? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Mr. Chairman, the Capitol Police Board has requested the department to develop a concept for the search for a 

new Chief of Police. This concept is being developed as we speak 

to include use of a search firm, the selection criteria, and items 
214 

such as that. Upon approval of the concept, a statement of work 

and deliverables, the process is estimated to be accomplished in approximately 3 to 4 months. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL SELECTION STATUS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. Now, what about the inspector general? That’s another area where we have a search process in place. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir. The search has been completed by the 

search firm, and the first interviews by the three inspector generals selected I understand has been completed or is in the process 

of being completed, and we, the Board, will start interviews, we 

think, within the next 2 weeks—2 to 3 weeks. 

MASTER TRAINING PLAN—CAPITOL POLICE

Senator ALLARD. Now, I’d like to move to training. You talked 

somewhat in your comments, Chief McGaffin, about training. Do 

we have a master training plan for our Capitol Police? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. We have—the training services bureau, 

that’s the group that is responsible for providing all the training 

for the police department, has developed a 2-year business plan 

that includes within it steps toward improving master training 

plans, schedules, initiatives associated with all the training within 

the police department. 

Senator ALLARD. So, it also includes organizational training policies as well as—— 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Sir—— 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. On-the-street training, so to speak. 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. It certainly does. It cuts all the way 

across—sworn civilian, recruit, in-service, and it is undergoing a review now with great emphasis and great energy being placed on 

improving it and ensuring that it meets every core competency that 

is being identified within all the positions and jobs we have in the 

department. 

Senator ALLARD. So, what do you see as the greatest challenge 

in updating this document? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. It is a challenge, and we are working toward meeting it. 

Senator ALLARD. What part of it is the greatest challenge? 

Acting Chief MCGAFFIN. Oh, the greatest challenge? I’m sorry, 

Mr. Chairman. We have several. One is staffing. You know, to 

identify core competencies and the training requirements and the 

different positions we have is a challenge, but a greater one is to 

ensure that you have the right instructor staff and competencies 

within that instructor staff to deliver the training. And so, it’s a 

balance. Within limited FTE staffing levels, we have got to pull 

men and women out of the line to put them into the training services bureau. So, we are looking at some strategies that would 

achieve efficiencies in those areas as well to include adjunct instructors who would be considered practitioners who would come 

off the line. 

For example, in our driver training program or our firearms program, when we would be running those courses, we would be bringing officers who are, in fact, drivers and who have been certified 

as instructors in that area to come in and conduct those classes. 
215 

We also use our legal staff to come in and to conduct legal updates 

and constitutional law reviews for us. So, we are looking for efficiencies there as well, but that is a big challenge. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Senator ALLARD. I’d like to thank you, Chief McGaffin. This is 

sort of a last-minute responsibility you have had to incur. It’s difficult to show up before this subcommittee, but we just want to 

thank you for stepping forward, and you have done a great job. 

Thank you for that. I also want to thank the whole Police Board 

for your effort. 

(217) 

CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL POLICE BOARD AND CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS 

HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, FAIA 

TOM STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF VISITOR SERVICES 

Senator ALLARD. We’ll now move on to the Capitol Guide Board. 

Mr. Livingood, you’re the chairman, so you’ll be our next panel. 

We’re ready when you are. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity for 

the Capitol Guide Board to appear before this subcommittee. I am 

pleased to come before you today to report on the operations of the 

Capitol Guide Service and the Congressional Special Services Office. With me today are Mr. William Pickle, the Senate Sergeant 

at Arms, and Mr. Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, who 

are members of the Capitol Guide Board, and Mr. Tom Stevens, Director of Visitor Services. 

PRIMARY FUNCTION

The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to provide 

an educational, accessible, and enjoyable visit to the United States 

Capitol for over 1 million visitors each year. The employees of the 

Capitol Guide Service and the Congressional Special Services Office provide a wide range of tour-related services to Member offices 

and public. We have had, as I said, over 1 million visitors this year, 

and that’s on public tours, large group of Member’s tours, congressional staff-led tours, and adaptive tours for visitors with disabilities. 

At the current level, we this year may well reach over 1.5 million 

visitors to the Capitol before October 2006. 

As a quick background and I have submitted my full testimony 

for the record, but just as a quick background, the Capitol Guide 

Service has been in existence since 1876, and they initially employed three guides. 

And since then, as you know, the Guide Service and the role of 

the Guide Service has expanded—not only in terms of managing 

visitors to the Capitol, but in terms of added responsibilities. Following the events of September 11, the Capitol Guide Board called 

upon the Guide Service to assist the Capitol Police with emergency 

preparedness. Guide Service management is now equipped with 

emergency radios, providing a communications bridge to the Guide 

Service’s own radio system. All Guide Service personnel have been 

trained in evacuation procedures. The Guide Service staff assists 

the Capitol Police in evacuation of all those tourists on public tours 

when needed. 
218 

In addition to its daily responsibilities, the Guide Service and the 

CSSO help facilitate visitors through the Capitol during special 

events, such as the 2005 Presidential Inauguration, the lying in 

State for President Ronald Reagan and the lying in honor for Rosa 

Parks. 

BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Capitol Guide Service and the Congressional Services Office is $8,489,000. This request 

includes $4,450,000 for existing operations, which is an increase of 

$352,000 or 8.6 percent over the fiscal year 2006 budget. Of that 

amount, 93 percent of this increase includes the COLA and increases in personnel benefits. 

The single largest increase in the fiscal year 2007 request in- cludes an additional $4,039,000 to fund 71 additional FTEs and related equipment for operations in the new Capitol Visitor Center. 

The Guide Service and Congressional Special Services Office are 

currently funded for 72 employees, so this is in addition to that. 

The Architect of the Capitol has conducted a thorough study of the 

number and type of new positions necessary for tour operations in 

the new Capitol Visitor Center. The Guide Board’s request for fiscal year 2007 funding reflects this need. In addition, the funding 

request includes the tour-related equipment necessary for beginning the transition to operations in the Capitol Visitor Center as 

soon as possible. 

As we begin to transition to the new Capitol Visitor Center, we 

welcome the opportunity to increase the duties and responsibilities 

of the Capitol Guide Service to meet the needs of the congressional 

community and the visiting public. 

In closing, the dedicated employees of the Capitol Guide Service 

and the Congressional Special Services Office do a tremendous, 

dedicated job in providing the maximum in visitor service to all 

who come here to the Capitol. Yet, none of this would be possible 

without the support of this subcommittee. Thank you for your ongoing support, and we’ll be happy to answer any questions at this 

time. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILSON LIVINGOOD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity for 

the Capitol Guide Board to appear before the Committee. I am pleased to come before you today to report on the operations of the Capitol Guide Service and its Congressional Special Services Office. With me today are Mr. William H. Pickle, the 

Senate Sergeant at Arms and Mr. Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, who 

join me as Members of the Capitol Guide Board. Also with me today is Mr. Tom 

Stevens, Director of Visitor Service, who has the pleasure of overseeing the day to 

day operations of the Capitol Guide Service. 

The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to provide an enjoyable and 

accessible visit to the United States Capitol for over one million visitors annually. 

In fiscal year 2005 the Guide Service accommodated approximately 353,000 visitors 

on Public tours alone. Also, the Guide Service led approximately 96,000 visitors on 

Member Reserved Group tours, 19,000 on Congressional member tours (early-morning tours) and 7,000 on Dome tours. The Guide Service also trained over 3,000 Congressional staff to give tours and regulated the flow of approximately 680,000 visitors on staff-led tours. Additionally, the Guide Service through its Congressional 

Special Services Office, provided over 850 hours of sign language interpreting services for Congressional business, accommodated more than 1,300 visitors on adaptive 

tours for visitors with disabilities and provided elevator escorts for more than 9,000 
219 

1 Effective January 3, 1971, Public Law 91–510 made the tour guides legislative employees 

under the jurisdiction of the Capitol Guide Board. The first free guided tour was conducted on 

January 3, 1971. 

visitors. If current levels are an indicator, we may reach 1.5 million visitors to the 

Capitol before this October. 

The Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876, employing three 

guides when it was established for the centennial celebration. The Capitol Guide 

Board—similar in composition to the Capitol Police Board (House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and Architect of the Capitol)—was established in 1970 to formalize 

the Guide Service as a professional entity within the Congress and to supervise and 

direct its operation.1 The authorizing legislation in 1970 called upon the Guide Service, which employed twenty-four guides at the time, to not only provide educational 

tours of the Capitol but also to ‘‘assist the Capitol Police by providing ushering and 

informational services, and other services not directly involving law enforcement, in 

connection with ceremonial occasions in the Capitol or on Capitol Grounds,’’ among 

other duties. 

Since then, the role of the Guide Service has expanded to include additional responsibilities. Following the events of 9/11, we called upon the Guide Service to assist the Capitol Police with emergency preparedness. Guide Service management is 

now equipped with emergency radios, providing a communications bridge to the 

Guide Service’s own radio system. All Guide Service personnel have been trained 

in evacuation procedures. It falls to the Guide Service staff to assist the Capitol Police in the evacuation of those on public tours, who for the most part, have never 

been inside the Capitol Building before. 

Today, we are budgeted for 72 Guide Service employees to perform these services. 

We welcome the opportunity to increase the duties of the Guide Service to meet the 

needs of the Congressional community as we transition to the Capitol Visitor Center. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Guide Service is requesting a total budget of $8,489,000. 

This request includes $4,450,000 for existing operations which is an increase of 

$352,000 or 8.6 percent over the fiscal year 2006 budget. Of that amount, $328,000 

(93 percent) of this increase over fiscal year 2006 includes the estimated fiscal year 

2007 COLA and increases in personnel benefits. This part of the requested increase 

would enable the Guide Service to maintain the level of service currently being provided to Members of Congress and their guests based on current visitation volume 

and services provided. Secondly, this request includes $4,039,000 to fund 71 additional FTEs and related equipment to operate in the new Capitol Visitor Center. 

The staff of the Capitol Guide Service and its Congressional Special Services office 

has done a tremendous job in providing the utmost in visitor services to all who 

come to experience the Capitol. The accomplishments of this office would not be possible without the support of this Committee. We thank you for your support and 

the opportunity to present this testimony and answer your questions. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER OPENING

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you. I have four questions here I’d 

just like to cover with you this morning. The Guide Service and you 

are planning for the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center. Is this 

going to be a seamless operation as we move forward with the CVC 

operations? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Alan, do you want—— 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Hantman. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, good morning. 

Senator ALLARD. Good morning. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Tom Stevens has been meeting with our transition team, with our operations team regularly for the last couple 

of years; talking about the role of the Capitol Guide Service with 

respect to the operations of the visitor center itself. We fully expect 

that once we get the executive director on board and working together with this team, which needs to be enlarged, both on the executive director side as well as on the Guide Board side, that we 

will have a seamless operation. Clearly, the plan is for hiring, 
220 

starting in 2007, for the Capitol Guide team, the additional 71 people that Zell has identified. And obviously, the new functions that 

the Guide Service will be accommodating; such as boarding buses, 

talking to people before they actually get off the buses, to come into 

the visitor center, greeting people once they come through the 

screening area, working in the orientation theater areas, bringing 

people into those theaters, out of the theaters to be broken up into 

smaller groups to tour the Capitol building itself. Inside the exhibition areas—all of these functions and the new information desks 

inside the visitor center as well, will be staffed by the new people 

identified for the Guide Service. It’s a tremendous increase in the 

responsibility and scope. And with the ability now to welcome and 

educate people as they come to visit their Nation’s Capitol, as we 

have not been able to do in the past, will be a wonderful new role, 

an expanded role for the Guide Service. 

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS

Senator ALLARD. Now, you’ve got 71 FTEs, and 24 of those are 

going to be full time, and you’re planning on 37 that will be half 

time, or part time. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Tom. 

Mr. STEVENS. It’s 37 FTEs that actually split for 6-month positions, so it’s actually 74 bodies, if you will, during the peak season. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay, and do you anticipate any difficulties in 

hiring these half-time employees? 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, we don’t at this point. Zell has volunteered 

their services to assist us in recruiting and advertising and actually hiring those folks. 

Senator ALLARD. Where are you anticipating the half-time employees would come from? 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, what we see now are a number of college students, retirees, folks that go south for the winter, but are up here 

during the summer that enjoy the environment and come to work 

for us. And this is in addition to our volunteer staffing that we’ll 

actually be beefing up. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now, are you confident that the numbers 

of Guide Service employees requested for the CVC are sufficient? 

Mr. STEVENS. I certainly believe for year one we will have sufficient staffing. Hopefully we will not have any kind of legislation 

that limits our maximum staffing levels. That is, we are budgeted 

for 143 FTEs, including the current staff. Some of those might be 

9-month employees, some 6 month, and some 3 month. It’s obviously unrealistic to try to hire all those people and get them 

trained in a 1-month period. So, it’ll be a ramping up just as the 

season ramps up for us and then slowly ramping down in the fall, 

as does the visitor season. 

HIRING FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

Senator ALLARD. Based on the oversight that we have been having on a monthly basis with the Capitol Visitor Center, testimony 

is indicating that May is when the CVC would open. When do you 

begin hiring for the CVC positions with a May opening date? 

Mr. STEVENS. I think we have to anticipate somewhere very close 

to the first of the year, aggressively advertising and recruiting. 
221 

Part of the challenge in training is finding adequate space. We do 

some training now, but our facilities are very limited. Maybe we 

can borrow some space to do some larger training classes of 50 or 

60 at a time, but that’s probably going to be the biggest challenge 

because much of what we do is very unique to our office. They 

aren’t skills that people typically bring with them from previous 

employment. So, it does take several weeks to even give people a 

rudimentary knowledge of the building to where we are comfortable with them actually interacting with the visitors. 

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

Senator ALLARD. Do we have to deal with a certificate of occupancy on the new Capitol Visitor Center where people are not allowed in until you get your final inspection? My point is we may 

have part of the Capitol Visitor Center available if we could get 

into it before final inspection for employee training. 

Mr. HANTMAN. We would expect, Mr. Chairman, that for training 

functions, some of the functions that Tom and the team will need 

to go through, that we’d be able to do that a period of weeks before 

a certificate of occupancy is issued for the central area. The training that would have to go on that would, say, use outside sample 

groups, if you will, to move through the center would probably be 

done more likely after a certificate of occupancy was obtained for 

general people to come in as opposed to employees. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. That’s all the questions I have. Again, I 

want to thank the panel for showing up this morning and testifying 

before this subcommittee. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

The subcommittee stands in recess until Wednesday, April 26, at 

10:30 a.m. when we will take testimony from the Government Accountability Office on its fiscal year 2007 budget request, as well 

as receive an update from the Architect of the Capitol and the GAO 

on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center. Look forward to seeing you then. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., Wednesday, April 5, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 26.] 

(223) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006 

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. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

GENE L. DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 

SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

GEORGE G. STRADER, CONTROLLER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The hour of 10:30 having arrived and staying 

on schedule like we do, we’re going to call the Subcommittee on the 

Legislative Branch to order. This is a hearing on the 2007 budget 

for the Government Accountability Office (GAO). We will meet 

today to take testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget request for 

the Government Accountability Office, as well as review other GAO 

matters. 

Welcoming our witnesses this morning, we have Mr. David Walker, Comptroller General; Gene Dodaro, Chief Operating Officer; 

Sallyanne Harper, Chief Administrative Officer; and George 

Strader, GAO’s Controller. I look forward to hearing how you are 

implementing goal setting and tying that in with your budget figures and employee performance. 

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ON MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM

Before we discuss GAO’s fiscal 2007 budget request, I’d like to 

take a few moments to discuss an issue of deep concern to me. On 

April 2 of this year, the New York Times published a story alleging 

that the Government Accountability Office—and I quote, ‘‘ignored 

evidence that contractors doctored data, skewed test results, and 

made false claims,’’ close quote, in a 2002 report on missile defense. 

The article was based on information provided by Mr. Subrata 

Ghoshroy, a GAO analyst who is on loan to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
224 

The information provided by Mr. Ghoshroy raises several troubling issues and calls into question the integrity of the GAO’s investigative process. Even more disturbing are Mr. Ghoshroy’s accusations that GAO personnel deliberately undermined this investigation and possibly altered documents to avoid investigating key 

items that might have lead to revelations of contractor fraud. 

I am especially interested in knowing how GAO made a unilateral decision to alter the scope of the investigation without securing 

the concurrence of the members who requested the investigation. 

Mr. Walker, I realize that some have used this issue to promote 

their own political agenda. In the context of this hearing, the policy 

does not interest me, really. I am interested in the process. And as 

the subcommittee responsible for overseeing the GAO, I believe we 

have an obligation to get to the bottom of the allegations. The 

GAO’s reputation and credibility depends upon its ability to accurately investigate the executive branch on behalf of Congress. Accountability, integrity, and reliability are GAO’s core tenets and I 

think we need to maintain those. 

So Mr. Walker, please proceed with your statement. 

Mr. WALKER. Sure. Would you like me to address that issue now. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

And then, let’s go ahead and move on to your budget. 

MR. WALKER’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

Mr. WALKER. That’ll be great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a 

pleasure to be back before you and I look forward to talking about 

the budget. But let me go ahead and address this issue, because 

I think it is important we try to put it to rest. 

First, the allegations lack merit. Just because they are printed, 

doesn’t mean they are true. I can tell you that we conducted three 

internal reviews on this matter. Any time that I received a complaint, from either Mr. Berman or Mr. Ghoshroy, I expeditiously 

took steps to try to review those. I commissioned three internal reviews and all of those reviews came out to say that the assertions 

lacked merit. 

Furthermore, there was a prize winning investigative reporter 

from 1 of the top 10 papers in the United States—who spent 

months last year conducting an independent investigation of this. 

And after months, the reporter determined that it lacked merit and 

was not worthy of publication. 

Furthermore, I think it’s important for you to know, that this report was 1 of about 4,000 that we’ve issued in the last several 

years. It’s also one of many that we’ve issued on national missile 

defense, and we take our quality control procedures very seriously. 

We want you to be able to rely upon our work and for the American 

people to be able to rely on our work. I think it’s important for you 

to also know that last year we had two independent peer reviews 

conducted of GAO’s quality assurance processes. One by KPMG on 

our financial audits. One by a multinational team lead by Canada, 

involving seven countries who looked at our quality control procedures and non-financial audit work. You can rely on our work. 
225 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM MISSILE DEFENSE ENGAGEMENT

Now with regard to lessons learned. There are two important lessons learned from this engagement. Number one, we never should 

have accepted it from day one. We were asked to do work on a matter that, after further investigation, was pending in the Federal 

courts. In my view, there was an attempt to get GAO to intervene 

in private party litigation and to use GAO’s work to further that 

private party litigation. That is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion. 

So first, we made a mistake by accepting the engagement. But 

after it became clear, and after we had accepted to do some work, 

that we were being asked to do something relating to litigation that 

was pending, we made an attempt to modify the objectives of the 

engagement, in order to be able to do something without directly 

intervening in that litigation. 

In doing that, we made a second mistake. And that is, when we 

communicated with the requestor’s staff about the need to make a 

change and what our change would be, we did not communicate it 

in writing. That was a mistake. As a result, that led to an expectation gap between the requestor and us as well as I think, this particular employee who is on a leave of absence, who has dogged us 

ever since. 

We have modified our procedures with regard to engagement acceptance. We have also modified our procedures with regard to 

modifying engagement objectives after we’ve accepted an engagement. We have not had any other instances like this occur, and I 

can assure you we’ll do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t 

reoccur. But I can also assure you, that you can rely upon our work 

including that report. 

BACKGROUND ON MISSILE DEFENSE ARTICLE

Senator ALLARD. Now, I’m just going to follow up with a question 

and we’ll just get this off the table and move on with the budget. 

It’s really unusual for a GAO employee to come forward like this. 

I can’t recall any, and you indicated in your testimony that has 

never happened. In this particular instance, what caused your analyst to complain to the press, from your point of view? 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent, I would be speculating. I think the problem is, that the analyst wanted us to do 

the original work and when we modified the scope of the engagement to make sure that we did not interject GAO into ongoing litigation, I think the analyst had difficulty accepting that, even 

though it was very consistent with GAO’s longstanding policy well 

before I was at GAO, that we won’t interject ourselves into pending 

litigation. 

I think the analyst also had difficulty in understanding that 

while every person’s opinion counts at GAO, no matter what your 

position is, no matter what your level is, no matter what your classification is, in the final analysis while everybody needs to be heard 

and is heard, we make institutional decisions. 

Senator ALLARD. And this was in a lawsuit that he had a personal interest in? 
226 

Mr. WALKER. To my knowledge, he didn’t have a personal interest. But it’s also my understanding; he may have known some of 

the parties who did have a personal interest in the litigation. 

That’s something that we’re following up on. Since the report appeared in the New York Times, I have received information from 

a party, not in government, but a very high ranking official who’s 

aware of this situation, who believes that there may have been 

some relationships that need to be reviewed, and we are in the 

process of doing that. These are allegations. They may or may not 

be true. And unless and until we review it and investigate it, I 

would prefer not to go into more detail. But I would be more than 

happy to keep you apprised, as I promised Congressman Berman 

as well as Senator Grassley to keep them apprised. 

Senator ALLARD. Well I would appreciate that. I’m glad that you 

feel that you’ve learned some things. We all make mistakes occasionally and we need to learn from those mistakes. But aside from 

that, do you think the review was taken in the most professional 

and unbiased manner possible? 

Mr. WALKER. You can rely on that work, Mr. Chairman. The 

other thing that one has to keep in mind, is the Justice Department was already well aware of this matter. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. And so, this was not something new. This was not 

something where people were relying on GAO to be able to advise 

the Justice Department as to whether or not the Government’s interest should be protected. In fact, the Justice Department conducted its own independent review, it’s my understanding, to determine whether and to what extent they should intervene in this action. They decided not to intervene in this action. 

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, we have spent a tremendous 

amount of time institutionally, as well as myself individually, and 

we’ve spent a significant amount of taxpayer resources taking this 

matter very seriously. I’m just hoping we’re to the point that we 

can move forward. 

PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CONGRESS ON MISSILE DEFENSE

Senator ALLARD. Yes. You’ve now talked to Mr. Berman and Senator Grassley about this misjudgment that you’ve made in taking 

on the case and subsequently had to change the scope. Even 

though it was after the fact, did they agree in light of the court 

case, that this is a change that needed to be made? 

Mr. WALKER. They understand and they accept what we did and 

why we did it. I’ve spoken to Mr. Berman on several occasions over 

several years about this. In fact, I was very surprised when the article appeared in the New York Times, because there had been no 

attempt to communicate with me on this for almost 2 years. After 

all the efforts I had taken, and that we institutionally had taken 

on this, it was really a surprise to me. In fact, the letter that resulted in the New York Times article—the 41 page letter, dated 

December 19, 2005, was never provided to me or anybody else at 

GAO. We had to get it off of Mr. Berman’s website the day after 

it appeared in the New York Times. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 
227 

Mr. WALKER. I will say for the record, that I had the professional 

courtesy to send Subrata Ghoshroy a copy of my response to his 

letter, which I think obviously, is appropriate. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S POLICY ON ENGAGEMENTS

PENDING LITIGATION

Senator ALLARD. Yes. Now your policy, prior to 2002, has not 

been to take on studies that might involve you in a court case. Is 

that the policy now? 

Mr. WALKER. Our policy was and remains not to have GAO directly address issues that are pending before the Federal courts. 

Senator ALLARD. Is it just Federal courts or is it local courts too? 

Mr. WALKER. It’s general—it’s any court. But typically, its Federal courts when somebody would be involving us to do anything 

regarding Federal spending, programs or whatever else. We never 

should have accepted it. Once we did accept it, we endeavored to 

try to be able to modify the objectives to not directly intervene. But 

that created certain expectation gaps within our organization and 

outside our organization. In fact, I communicated with Mr. Berman 

about this within the last couple of weeks and I think we both 

agree, that rather than modify the objectives, we probably should 

have said, we’re not going to do anything. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. Because it created certain expectation gaps. So, as 

you know, no good deed goes unpunished. I mean you’re trying to 

provide some type of service. But we have learned lessons. In summary, you can rely on this report and we did take the complaints 

very seriously. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S QUALITY CONTROL

PROCEDURES

Senator ALLARD. Now how does GAO deal with concerns that are 

raised by analysts as to the direction the report is going in or the 

conclusions being drawn during the course of the job? 

Mr. WALKER. Let me provide an overview of our quality control 

procedures, Mr. Chairman. I think it would help. As you can imagine, we receive 25 to 50 requests in a typical week from the Congress for us to do work. Every Monday afternoon, Gene Dodaro, our 

Chief Operating Officer, after getting input from me, chairs a meeting reviewing all of those requests involving the managing directors of all of our key teams, and we make a decision, typically within 10 days, on whether or not we’re going to accept it. We also assign who is going to be the leader. We also identify, given the nature of the work, the complexity of the work, what we’re being 

asked to do, and who the other key stakeholders are that need to 

be involved. For most of the work that we do, there are multiple 

key stakeholders, or multiple organizations, as was the case with 

this report. There are usually a number of key organizations that 

have to be involved to bring the right skills and knowledge together 

to do the best job and to mitigate related risk. 

Then staff are assigned. We have an extensive quality control 

process that includes periodic status reports on each major engagement. We also have a quality control process that includes internal 

reviews of all draft reports. We have a quality control process that 
228 

includes providing an opportunity for any of the agencies that 

would be affected, to comment on the report before it is made final. 

If there are differences of opinion within our agency between key 

stakeholders, they are to buck it up the chain of command. If necessary, to my level, to get it resolved. 

Interestingly with regard to this report, we have a policy where 

before we issue any report, every stakeholder that’s assigned to the 

engagement has to sign off on the report. That was the case here, 

including the person who’s complaining. 

Senator ALLARD. So the person who’s raising the complaint 

signed off on the report? 

Mr. WALKER. He signed off on the report. 

ENSURING THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTS ARE

IMPARTIAL

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now, what steps do you take to ensure 

that your employees or consultants that you are working with don’t 

have an over sympathetic relationship with individuals involved in 

your investigation, in a way that might distort the outcome of that 

report? 

Mr. WALKER. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have professional 

independence standards that relate to GAO. We also have supplemental internal policies and procedures. We set a very high bar on 

both institutional independence, as well as individual independence 

with regard to particular engagements. So when we’re staffing, 

we’re looking for that. The people have to let us know if they think 

they have any potential impairments that we need to be aware of. 

I would ask Gene Dodaro, our Chief Operating Officer, to comment 

in more detail. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Dodaro. 

Mr. DODARO. Good morning, Senator. We have several different 

safeguards in place. Annually, each employee is to sign a statement 

of independence, saying that they are free from any personal impairments. Every employee also files a financial disclosure statement that’s reviewed by their supervisor, so we can tell if they 

have any financial interest that may be an issue. 

Then, when individual engagements are staffed, every employee 

is reminded that they are to notify their manager if they have any 

personal or other conflicts with their assignment to that engagement. And then, they sign off on every individual engagement. 

Now, we didn’t have that particular procedure in place back 

when this engagement was conducted, but we’ve added it since 

then. We’ve always had the annual certification. We’ve always had 

the requirement that each employee notify managers if they have 

any conflicts of interest. 

So the burden is on individual employees to notify managers. But 

we do have institutional safeguards and do some independent 

checking, as well. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. And just kind of a summary question 

here. Mr. Dodaro, you mentioned a couple lessons learned. Can we 

just get a summary of lessons learned and then actions that have 

been taken, so that doesn’t happen again? 

Mr. WALKER. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We’d be happy to provide that for the record. 
229 

Senator ALLARD. If you would, please. 

Mr. WALKER. We will do it. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. How has GAO responded to the allegations about the February 2002 

missile defense program report and what changes, if any, have you made to GAO’s 

internal processes as a result? 

Answer. We have taken these concerns very seriously. In total, I initiated three 

internal reviews to respond to the concerns and most recently, in April 2006, provided a detailed response to Senator Grassley and Representative Berman addressing questions about the report. In summary, 

—The three internal reviews that have been conducted, including one by our Inspector General, found that our 2002 report was done in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and the allegations raised were 

not substantiated. In particular, these reviews determined that there was no 

credible evidence supporting the assertion of conflicts of interest by GAO personnel involved with the engagement nor was there any credible evidence that 

would raise questions regarding the integrity of our workpapers. 

—The missile defense report’s findings represent the consensus view of our most 

senior technical and professional staff. Differences of opinion during the course 

of the work were resolved by the time the report was issued, as evidenced by 

the signatures of all the ‘‘stakeholders’’ on the engagement, including the employee making the assertions. As a result, we continue to stand behind the report. While the employee who made the allegations, like all the other team 

members did play a role in this engagement, he was one of four technical people 

involved in the project. In addition, while all GAO employees’ opinions are important and sought, the opinion of a single individual is not sufficient to create 

an institutional position. 

—Importantly, the objective of our engagement was not to adjudicate whether 

false claims had or had not been made nor did we attempt to do so. In hindsight, we should not have accepted the original July 2000 request because of 

the then-ongoing litigation over the central issues involved in the sensor test. 

Once we identified the need to restructure the engagement in order to be consistent with long-standing GAO policy involving matters pending before the 

courts, we took corrective action to avoid directly inserting GAO into the issues 

that were the subject of the litigation. The Justice Department was already 

aware of allegations of false claims prior to GAO issuing its report. Furthermore, the Justice Department conducted its own review of this matter and decided not to pursue it. As I have noted in previous communications on this matter, we should have done a better job of communicating to the requester that 

we were revising our audit scope and objectives and documenting such revisions. Clearly this communication gap underlies the fundamental misunderstanding that is at the heart of this dispute both internally and externally, 

which has now consumed a significant amount of time and taxpayer resources 

over several years. 

—GAO has a strong, clear, and consistent record of aggressively pursuing fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement within government, including the Defense 

Department, in general, and defense contracting and weapons acquisitions, in 

particular. In fact, eight individual DOD areas are on GAO’s high risk list including weapons systems acquisition and several government wide high risk 

areas apply to DOD as well. Our reviews of missile defense issues have been 

an important part of this body of work. 

In part as a result of the 2002 missile defense report, we have clarified our written policies and introduced new procedures pertaining to requests for work that deal 

with issues in litigation. Our written policies have been revised to emphasize that 

our Office of General Counsel should help identify and analyze any ongoing or anticipated litigation that could affect the engagement acceptance decision, and that 

this office should be consulted about such matters. In addition, the July 2004 update 

to our Congressional Protocols specifies that one of the factors that will be considered in determining whether to accept congressional requests is whether the matter 

is pending before administrative or judicial forums. We also have been giving greater attention to this issue at our weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting, where all 

new congressional requests and mandates are discussed to determine, among other 

things, whether the work should be done and the appropriate level of Office of 

Comptroller General involvement. Known or potential issues involving litigation are 

discussed at the Engagement Acceptance Meeting as part of deciding whether GAO 

should accept the engagement. Lastly, we hold bi-weekly Engagement Review Meetings to discuss progress or issues on ongoing assignments that may require senior 
230 

GAO management attention, such as litigation that may have been initiated since 

an engagement was begun and that may impact the engagement’s scope or objectives. 

Regarding the issue of communicating changes in the scope of GAO work to requesters, once I became aware of the miscommunication on the missile defense engagement, we strengthened our internal policies and practices to protect against 

such communication problems in the future. Specifically, our practice is now to not 

only discuss significant changes in the scope of work, but also to document this discussion with a letter to the requester outlining the changes. Additional communication requirements in the protocols include holding discussions and sending documenting letters concerning our acceptance/declination of a request; and our agreement with the requester on the terms of the engagement. The practice of providing 

briefings and sending letters to the requester whenever there is a significant change 

in the objectives or scope of an engagement—coupled with the attention we give to 

these issues in Engagement Acceptance and Engagement Review Meetings—should 

help ensure solid communications with our congressional clients on these issues. 

In regard to assuring the independence of GAO staff, at the start of each engagement, the engagement’s Director discusses the need to maintain independence with 

the engagement team and asks if anyone has any independence issues. This discussion is documented. If an individual’s personal impairment cannot be mitigated, the 

individual will not perform the audit. When the design of an engagement is completed and documented (referred to as a design matrix), all engagement staff and 

stakeholders certify on the design matrix that they are free of any impairments to 

their independence and that they will notify their supervisor if such impairments 

should arise. 

Finally, it is our longstanding policy and practice that GAO’s professional staff 

represent their independence by (1) signing an annual Statement of Independence 

stating that they have no personal or external impairments and understand the requirements for independence as stated in our professional standards (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards), (2) identifying financial interests and filing 

an annual Financial Disclosure report that is reviewed by Executive Committee 

members, Managing Directors, or designees; and (3) reporting to their Managing Director when they are seeking employment at the entity being audited and obtaining 

their Managing Director’s approval to engage in outside activities. 

Question. What policies and practices have you put in place to assure that (1) 

GAO does not accept requests for work on matters involving pending litigation, (2) 

changes in the scope of work are communicated to requesters, and (3) GAO staff 

are free of any impairments related to the subject or conduct of an engagement? 

Answer. It has been our long-standing policy to generally avoid addressing any 

issue that is directly related to a matter pending in the Courts. In addition, we do 

not believe it is appropriate to use GAO as a means of advancing the interests or 

positions of private parties in pending litigation, whether intentionally or unintentionally. As a general rule, we will seek to avoid such engagements unless we believe we can structure our work to avoid influencing or directly interfering with 

pending litigation. 

In part as a result of the 2002 missile defense report, we have clarified our written policies and introduced new procedures pertaining to requests for work that deal 

with issues in litigation. Our written policies have been revised to emphasize that 

our Office of General Counsel should help identify and analyze any ongoing or anticipated litigation that could affect the engagement acceptance decision, and that 

this office should be consulted about such matters. In addition, the July 2004 update 

to our Congressional Protocols specifies that one of the factors that will be considered in determining whether to accept congressional requests is whether the matter 

is pending before administrative or judicial forums. We also have been giving greater attention to this issue at our weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting, where all 

new congressional requests and mandates are discussed to determine, among other 

things, whether the work should be done and the appropriate level of Office of 

Comptroller General involvement. Lastly, we hold bi-weekly Engagement Review 

Meetings to discuss progress or issues on ongoing assignments that may require 

senior GAO management attention, such as litigation that may have been initiated 

since an engagement was begun and that may impact the engagement’s scope or objectives. 

Regarding the issue of communicating changes in the scope of GAO work to requesters, once we became aware of the miscommunication on the missile defense engagement, we strengthened our internal policies and practices to protect against 

such communication problems in the future. Specifically, our practice is now to not 

only discuss significant changes in the scope of work, but also to document this discussion with a letter to the requester outlining the changes. Additional communica-
231 

tion requirements in the protocols include holding discussions and sending documenting letters concerning our acceptance/declination of a request; and our agreement with the requester on the terms of the engagement. The practice of providing 

briefings and sending letters to the requester whenever there is a significant change 

in the objectives or scope of an engagement—coupled with the attention we give to 

these issues in Engagement Acceptance and Engagement Review Meetings—should 

help ensure solid communications with our congressional clients on these issues. 

In regard to assuring the independence of GAO staff, at the start of each engagement, the engagement’s Director discusses the need to maintain independence with 

the engagement team and asks if anyone has any independence issues. This discussion is documented. If an individual’s personal impairment cannot be mitigated, the 

individual will not perform the audit. When the design of an engagement is completed and documented (referred to as a design matrix), all engagement staff and 

stakeholders certify on the design matrix that they are free of any impairments to 

their independence and that they will notify their supervisor if such impairments 

should arise. 

Finally, it is our longstanding policy and practice that GAO’s professional staff 

represent their independence by (1) signing an annual Statement of Independence 

stating that they have no personal or external impairments and understand the requirements for independence as stated in our professional standards (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards), (2) identifying financial interests and filing 

an annual Financial Disclosure report that is reviewed by Executive Committee 

members, Managing Directors, or designees; and (3) reporting to their Managing Director when they are seeking employment at the entity being audited and obtaining 

their Managing Director’s approval to engage in outside activities. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S FISCAL YEAR 2005

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Let’s go ahead and proceed with your 

budget, and hear what you have to say in that regard. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very 

much. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

again, and I want to thank your subcommittee for your past support. Briefly, I’d like to touch on some of our accomplishments for 

last year, and then our budget request for 2007. 

In the last fiscal year, ended September 30, 2005, as you know, 

GAO is trying to lead by example in transforming what we do and 

how we do business, focusing on positive results that benefit the 

Congress and the American people. Last year, we met or exceeded 

10 of our 14 performance measures. We matched or set all time 

records for three of those performance measures. We achieved 

$39.6 billion in financial benefits. That’s an $83 return for every 

$1 invested in GAO. That’s number one in the world. Nobody’s 

even close. Nobody else is even in double digits. We had a 93 percent positive client feedback score and we set all time records on 

our employee feedback scores. So on all dimensions; it was a very 

good year. 

We issued two strategic documents of critical importance to the 

Congress and the country. The first was our ‘‘High Risk Update’’ 

listing high risk programs, functions, and activities in the Federal 

Government. The second one was our ‘‘21st Century Challenges’’ 

document, which I know Mr. Chairman, you’ve seen. This document lays out a series of questions that need to be asked and answered in order to re-engineer the Government to address 21st century challenges and capitalize on related opportunities. 

We strengthened various partnerships, both domestically and 

internationally. For example, we led the effort to develop the first 

ever strategic plan for auditors general around the world, modeled 

after GAO’s plan. We also led the effort that resulted in the first 
232 

ever National Intergovernmental Audit Forum strategic plan which 

involves Federal, State, and local auditors. It’s important that we 

partner for progress, because we all have limited resources, if we’re 

going to achieve maximum results. 

We successfully completed, as I mentioned before, two external 

peer reviews, providing assurance to the Congress and the American people in connection with our quality control processes. They 

resulted not only in clean opinions, but also a number of global 

good practices that were identified. 

A couple of areas for continuous improvement were noted in the 

reports, and we are taking steps in light of those recommendations. 

We have implemented additional flexibilities provided by this Congress, dealing with our human capital classification and compensation systems. We now have market-based pay ranges for all GAO 

personnel. We now have a compensation system that pays based 

upon skills, knowledge, and performance. We also have extended 

pay banding to all of our administrative personnel. There are no 

GAO employees on the GS system. Not one. 

We are a window to the future, Mr. Chairman, with regard to 

this area. We most recently—and this is in fiscal 2006, had to accomplish the most difficult thing we’ll ever do internally and that 

is to make tough decisions for our so-called Band II, or mid-level 

senior auditors, investigators, analysts, and evaluators, to determine which ones should benefit from higher pay ranges that came 

out of the pay study and which ones should not. 

We found when that pay study came out, that it was good news 

and bad news. The good news was, depending on a person’s level 

of responsibilities and their performance; they should have the opportunity to earn up to $10,000 more than under our old system. 

The bad news was that if some persons were not leading on a recurring basis or their performance did not justify, we were paying 

them too much. And so, we had to go through a system, on an individual by individual basis, which I am happy to answer questions 

on if you so desire, that resulted in decisions for applicable individuals, including some resulting from personal appeals that came to 

me. 

In the final analysis, we’ve got only 1 percent of our Band II employees that have made independent appeals to our external review 

body. I think that is a minor miracle, and we obviously look forward to working with that body to resolve those appeals. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

REQUEST

As far as 2007, as has been the case, we are trying to be modest 

with regard to our budget requests. We know the country is in a 

deficit situation. We’re asking for about a 5-percent increase relating directly and overwhelmingly to mandatory and uncontrollable 

increases. 

I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman that you not just consider what our increase is for this year, but also how we’ve been 

treated over the last several years. For example, since fiscal 2000, 

GAO’s budget has increased 10 percent in constant dollars. The average legislative branch constant dollar increase during the same 

period is 36 percent. So I would respectfully suggest that you not 
233 

just look at what we’re asking for now, but how we’ve been treated 

in the past and what results we’re generating for the Congress and 

the American people, making the tough decisions that you’re going 

to have to make, with regard to limited resource allocations. 

We’re asking for 50 additional full-time equivalents (FTEs). The 

reason we’re asking for them, is that we’re facing increasing supply 

and demand imbalances in congressional requests versus our ability to address those requests in a timely manner in several areas, 

such as healthcare and homeland security. 

And last, we’re asking for a few targeted investments based on 

a business case, one time money that we would hopefully get funded for and will reverse out of our base, for things like replacing our 

20 year old financial management system and enhancing our physical and information security requirements. In that regard, Mr. 

Chairman, it’s not just for us, but we’re one of several contingent 

sites for the Congress in the event of an unexpected catastrophic 

event. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, we’re not just trying to take care of ourselves and our people, 

we’re also trying to be in a position to help the Congress in the 

event that the Congress needs to use our facilities, which has already happened once in the history of the republic. I hope it won’t 

happen again. But if it does, we want to be ready. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear before the 

Committee today in support of the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). This request 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. 

Budget constraints in the federal government grew tighter in fiscal years 2005 

and 2006. In developing our fiscal year 2007 budget, we considered those constraints 

consistent with GAO’s and the Committee’s desire to ‘‘lead by example.’’ In fiscal 

year 2007, we are requesting budget authority of $509.4 million, a reasonable 5 percent increase over our fiscal year 2006 revised funding level. In the event Congress 

acts to hold federal pay increases to 2.2 percent, our requested increase will drop 

to below 5 percent. This request will allow us to continue making improvements in 

productivity, maintain our progress in technology and other transformation areas, 

and support a full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing level of 3,267. This represents an 

increase of 50 FTEs over our planned fiscal year 2006 staffing level and will allow 

us to rebuild our workforce to a level that will position us to better respond to increasing supply and demand imbalances in areas such as disaster assistance, the 

global war on terrorism, homeland security, forensic auditing, and health care. 

I am proud of the work we accomplished this past fiscal year in support of the 

Congress and the American people. We provided our 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 to be even more critical because 

of the pressures created by our nation’s current and projected budget deficit and 

growing long-term fiscal imbalance. Indeed, as it considers those fiscal pressures, 

the Congress will be grappling with tough choices about what government does, how 

it does business, and who should do the government’s business. GAO is a valuable 

tool for helping the Congress review, reprioritize, and revise existing mandatory and 

discretionary spending programs and tax policies. Additionally, through its involvement domestically with the federal, state, and local audit community and internationally with its national audit office counterparts, GAO has played—and will 
234 

continue to play—an important role in helping to ensure the financial integrity of 

U.S. funds expended at home and abroad. GAO-led efforts to develop and implement 

the first-ever strategic plans for the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum and 

the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions have helped improve 

the effectiveness of these audit organizations and GAO to work more efficiently and 

cost-effectively. 

In an effort to identify areas for potential improvement, GAO underwent two peer 

reviews in fiscal year 2005. We obtained a clean opinion on our performance audit 

practice from an international team of experienced auditors—the first time that we 

have sought such an opinion. The independent reviewers concluded that we have 

designed and implemented an effective system of quality controls to provide reasonable assurance of complying with generally accepted government auditing standards, which are designed to ensure that audits of government activities are objective, independent, and reliable. This opinion validated that the Congress and the 

American people can rely on our work and products. Also during fiscal year 2005, 

GAO received an unqualified report, or clean opinion, on the results of the external 

peer review of its financial audit practice. External peer reviews are conducted on 

a 3-year cycle, and this is the fourth such clean opinion that GAO has received from 

an external peer reviewer since the program began in fiscal year 1996. The external 

peer reviewer, KPMG LLP, found that the system of quality control for GAO’s financial auditing practice met professional standards and that GAO in fact complied 

with the standards. 

In fiscal year 2005, we met or exceeded targets for 10 of our 14 performance measures, while setting or matching all-time records for 3 measures. We documented 

$39.6 billion in financial benefits—a return of $83 for every dollar we spent—and 

over 1,400 nonfinancial benefits—a record for us. Our targets for fiscal years 2006 

and 2007 will continue to challenge the agency in our efforts to support the Congress and serve the American people. Beginning with fiscal year 2006, we will add 

2 internal operations measures to the list. These 2 new performance measures will 

assess how well our mission and people are supported by our infrastructure operations staff. 

In fiscal year 2005, we issued two products that will assist the Congress as it addresses future challenges. Recognizing the importance and scope of these reports, 

we provided a copy to every member of Congress and each Committee, as well as 

the White House. Our report entitled 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the 

Base of the Federal Government provides a series of illustrative questions related 

to 12 areas of federal activity as well as our perspective on various strategies and 

approaches that should be considered as a possible means to address the issues and 

questions raised in the report. Drawing on our institutional knowledge and extensive program evaluation and performance assessment work for the Congress, we 

presented over 200 specific 21st century questions illustrating the types of hard 

choices our nation needs to face as it reexamines what the federal government 

should do, how it should do it, and how it should be financed. 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. The current administration has 

looked to our high-risk program in shaping governmentwide initiatives such as the 

President’s Management Agenda, which has at its base many of the areas we had 

previously identified as high risk. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in 

consultation with GAO, is currently working to ensure that agencies develop detailed action plans to address high-risk areas, with the ultimate objective, over time, 

of seeing these items removed from our high-risk list. 

As in past years, during fiscal year 2005, our work covered a number of major 

topics of concern to the nation and, in some cases, the world. For example, we reported on the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges, the financial condition of the airline industry, spending and reconstruction activities related to Iraq and Afghanistan, and strengthening the visa process as an antiterrorism tool. We also examined 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) transformation challenges, base realignment 

and closure issues, increasing the strategic focus of federal acquisitions, protecting 

against identity theft, the oversight of electricity markets, zero down-payment mortgages, and immigration enforcement. We testified many times before the Congress, 

contributing to the public debate on a variety of topics that included Social Security 

reform, pension reform, postal reform, GSE oversight, wildland fire management, 

gasoline prices, the flu vaccine, veterans’ health care, benefits for members of the 

Reserves and National Guard, digital broadcast television, long-term health care financing, passport fraud detection, reducing the tax gap, information security, and 
235 

a range of financial management and accountability issues. In addition, we conducted a range of work on a variety of legislative branch agencies and projects, including the Capitol Visitor Center, the Architect of the Capitol, and the U.S. Capitol 

Police. 

This past year we also continued to take steps internally to help us achieve our 

goal of being a model federal agency and a world-class professional services organization. These steps helped us to address our three major management challenges— 

human capital, physical security, and information security. Through the GAO 

Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, the Congress granted GAO several additional 

human capital flexibilities that will allow us, among other things, to move to an 

even more performance-oriented and market-based compensation system. As you 

have heard me say many times, our most valuable asset is our people, and the flexibilities granted in this act will help us to continue to modernize our people-related 

policies and strategies, which, in turn, will help ensure that we are well-equipped 

to serve the Congress and the American people in the years to come. As a result, 

we are continuing to take a range of actions designed to modernize our human capital policies and practices. In fiscal year 2005, we adopted a broad pay band approach and a more performance-oriented pay system for our administrative staff. In 

fiscal year 2006, we implemented a more market-based and skills-, knowledge-, and 

performance-oriented classification and pay system for all of our employees. 

My testimony today will focus on our budget request for fiscal year 2007 to support the Congress and serve the American people and on our performance and results with the funding you provided us in fiscal year 2005. 

GAO’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST TO SUPPORT THE CONGRESS

Our fiscal year 2007 budget request will provide us the resources necessary to 

achieve our performance goals in support of the Congress and the American people. 

This request will allow GAO to improve productivity and maintain progress in technology and other transformation areas. We continue to streamline GAO, modernize 

our policies and practices, and leverage technology so that we can achieve our mission more effectively and efficiently. These continuing efforts allow us to enhance 

our performance without significant increases in funding. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request represents a modest increase of about $25 million (or 5 percent) over our 

fiscal year 2006 revised funding level—primarily to cover uncontrollable mandatory 

pay and price level increases. This request reflects a reduction of nearly $5.4 million 

in nonrecurring fiscal year 2006 costs used to offset the fiscal year 2007 increase. 

This request also includes about $7 million in one-time fiscal year 2007 costs, which 

will not recur in fiscal year 2008, to upgrade our business systems and processes. 

As the Congress addresses the devastation in the Gulf Coast region from Hurricane Katrina and several other major 2005 hurricanes, GAO is supporting the Congress by assessing whether federal programs assisting the people of the Gulf region 

are efficient and effective and result in a strong return on investment. In order to 

address the demands of this work; better respond to the increasing number of demands being placed on GAO, including a dramatic increase in health care mandates; 

and address supply and demand imbalances in our ability to respond to congressional interest in areas such as disaster assistance, homeland security, the global 

war on terrorism, health care, and forensic auditing, we are seeking your support 

to provide the funding to rebuild our staffing level to the levels requested in previous years. We believe that 3,267 FTEs is an optimal staffing level for GAO that 

would allow us to more successfully meet the needs of the Congress. 

In preparing this request and taking into account the effects of the fiscal year 

2006 rescission, we revised our workforce plan to reduce fiscal year 2005 hiring and 

initiated a voluntary early retirement opportunity for staff in January 2006. These 

actions better support GAO’s strategic plan for serving the Congress, better align 

GAO’s workforce to meet mission needs, correct selected skill imbalances, and allow 

us to increase the number of new hires later in fiscal year 2006. Our revised hiring 

plan represents an aggressive hiring level that is significantly higher than in recent 

fiscal years, and it is the maximum number of staff we could absorb during fiscal 

year 2006. These actions will also position us to more fully utilize our planned FTE 

levels of 3,217 and 3,267 in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, respectively. 

Our fiscal year 2007 budget request includes approximately $502 million in direct 

appropriations and authority to use about $7 million in estimated revenue from 

rental income and reimbursable audit work. Table 1 summarizes the changes we are 

requesting in our fiscal year 2007 budget. 
236 

TABLE 1.—FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST, SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CHANGES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Budget category FTEs Amount Cumulative percentage change 

Fiscal year 2006 enacted budget authority .......................................... 3,217 $489,560 ..........................

Less: rescission ............................................................................. ........................ (4,896 ) ..........................

Fiscal year 2006 revised budget authority .............................. ........................ $484,664 ..........................

Fiscal year 2007 requested changes: 

Nonrecurring fiscal year 2006 costs ............................................ ........................ ($5,380 ) (1 ) 

Mandatory pay costs ..................................................................... 50 18,469 3 

Price level changes ....................................................................... ........................ 4,073 4 

Relatively controllable costs ......................................................... ........................ 7,528 ..........................

Adjustment due to rounding ......................................................... ........................ 1 ..........................

Subtotal—requested changes ................................................. 50 $24,691 5 

Total fiscal year 2007 budget authority required to support 

GAO operations .................................................................... 3,267 $509,355 ..........................

Source: GAO. 

Our fiscal year 2007 budget request supports three broad program areas: Human 

Capital, Engagement Support, and Infrastructure Operations. Consistent with our 

strategic goal to be a model agency, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to 

implement performance-based, market-oriented compensation systems; adopt best 

practices; benchmark service levels and costs; streamline our operations; cross-service and outsource activities; and leverage technology to increase efficiency, productivity, and results. 

The Human Capital Program provides the resources needed to support a diverse, 

highly educated, knowledge-based workforce comprising individuals with a broad 

array of technical and program skills and institutional memory. This workforce represents GAO’s human capital—its greatest asset—and is critical to the agency’s success in serving the Congress and the nation. Human Capital Program costs represent nearly 80 percent of our requested budget authority. 

To further ensure our ability to meet congressional needs, we plan to allocate ap- proximately $17 million for Engagement Support to: conduct travel, a critical tool 

to accomplish our mission of following the federal dollar cross the country and 

throughout the world, and to ensure the quality of our work; contract for expert advice and assistance when needed to meet congressional timeframes for a particular 

audit or engagement; and ensure a limited presence in the Middle East to provide 

more timely, responsive information on U.S. activities in the area. In addition, we plan to allocate about $91 million—or about 18 percent of our total 

request—for Infrastructure Operations programs and initiatives to provide the critical infrastructure to support our work. These key activities include information 

technology, building management, knowledge services, human capital operations, 

and support services. 

PERFORMANCE, RESULTS, AND PLANS

In fiscal year 2005, the Congress focused its attention on a broad array of challenging issues affecting the safety, health, and well-being of Americans here and 

abroad, and we were able to provide the objective, fact-based information that decision makers needed to stimulate debate, change laws, and improve federal programs 

for the betterment of the nation. For example, as the war in Iraq continued, we examined how DOD supplied vehicles, body armor, and other materiel to the troops 

in the field; contributed to the debate on military compensation; and highlighted the 

need to improve health, vocational rehabilitation, and employment services for seriously injured soldiers transitioning from the battlefield to civilian life. We kept pace 

with the Congress’s information needs about ways to better protect America from 

terrorism by issuing products and delivering testimonies that addressed issues such 

as security gaps in the nation’s passport operations that threaten public safety and 

federal efforts needed to improve the security of checked baggage at airports and 

cargo containers coming through U.S. ports. We also explored the financial crisis 

that weakened the airline industry and the impact of this situation on the traveling 

public and airline employees’ pensions. We performed this work in accordance with 

our strategic plan for serving the Congress, consistent with our professional stand-
237 

ards, and guided by our core values (see appendix 1). See table 2 for examples of 

how GAO assisted the nation in fiscal year 2005. 

TABLE 2.—EXAMPLES OF HOW GAO ASSISTED THE NATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Goal Description GAO provided information that helped to 

1 Provide timely, quality service to 

the Congress and the federal 

government to address current 

and emerging challenges to 

the well-being and financial 

security of the American people.

Improve the transition from active duty to civilian status for veterans with serious war-related injuries 

Address long-term health care financing pressures on state and local government budgets 

Identify challenges associated with transferring the Medicare appeals process 

from the Social Security Administration and HHS 

Improve patient safety at Department of Veterans’ Affairs hospitals 

Improve the security of Social Security numbers 

Address the challenges of pension reform 

Strengthen the security screening process for passengers and checked baggage at the nation’s airports 

Improve the oversight of Federal Housing Administration single-family and 

multifamily lenders 

Improve the oversight of electricity markets by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Identify challenges associated with the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) nuclear facility designs 

Monitor the growth in the digital television market 

Analyze issues contributing to the declining financial condition of the airline 

industry 

2 Provide timely, quality service to 

the Congress and the federal 

government to respond to 

changing security threats and 

the challenges of global interdependence.

Improve the management of funds for the global war on terrorism 

Increase the security of cargo containers to prevent terrorist activity 

Alert the Congress to issues affecting the DOD’s major weapon systems 

Analyze funding options for a new federal foreign assistance program—the 

Millennium Challenge Account 

Promote government efforts to address threats to the security of the nation’s 

information systems 

Strengthen the visa process as an antiterrorism tool 

Improve management of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program 

Shape the debate on improving military pay and benefits 

Strengthen the U.S. strategic export control system 

Identify improvements needed to secure critical IT systems used by U.S. financial markets 

Report to the Congress on the 2005 base realignment and closures (BRAC) 

defense transformation 

3 Help transform the federal government’s role and how it does 

business to meet 21st century 

challenges.

Increase the public’s understanding of the federal government’s long-term fiscal challenges 

Implement governmentwide civil service reforms 

Oversee federal tax policy 

Increase debts collected from criminals 

Decrease improper payments made by the USDA Food Stamp Program and 

other federal agencies 

Manage multibillion dollar IT modernizations and investments at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Office of Personnel Management 

Improve agencies’ strategic purchasing practices 

Examine changes in key areas of federal activity that could affect the federal 

government’s fiscal future 

Enhance the knowledge base on comprehensive national indicators 

Improve postal operations through reform legislation 

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; and 

workforce planning and staffing strategies, policies, and processes 

Share GAO’s model business and management processes and other transformation-related information with counterpart organizations in the United 

States and abroad 

Source: GAO. 
238 

OUTCOMES OF OUR WORK AND THE ROAD AHEAD

During fiscal year 2005 we monitored our performance using 14 annual performance measures that capture the results of our work; the assistance we provided to 

the Congress; and our ability to attract, retain, develop, and lead a highly professional workforce (see table 3). For example, in fiscal year 2005 our work generated 

$39.6 billion in financial benefits, primarily from actions agencies and the Congress 

took in response to our recommendations. Of this amount, about $19 billion resulted 

from changes to laws or regulations, $12.8 billion resulted from agency actions 

based on our recommendations to improve services to the public, and $7.7 billion 

resulted from improvements to core business processes. See figure 1 for examples 

of our fiscal year 2005 financial benefits. 
239 

TABLE 3.—AGENCYWIDE SUMMARY OF ANNUAL MEASURES AND TARGETS 

[Dollars in billions] 

Performance measures 2001 Actual 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Target 2007 Target 

Results: 

Financial benefits ................................................................................................................................................. $26 .4 $37 .7 $35 .4 $44 .0 $39 .6 $39 .0 $40 .0 Other benefits ....................................................................................................................................................... $799 $906 $1,043 $1,197 $1,409 $1,050 $1,100 Past recommendations implemented (percent) .................................................................................................... 79 79 82 83 85 80 80 New products with recommendations (percent) ................................................................................................... 44 53 55 63 63 60 60 

Client: 

Testimonies ........................................................................................................................................................... 151 216 189 217 179 210 185 Timeliness (percent) .............................................................................................................................................. 95 96 97 97 97 98 98 

People: 

New hire rate (percent) ......................................................................................................................................... N/A 96 98 98 94 97 97 Acceptance rate (percent) ..................................................................................................................................... N/A 81 72 72 71 75 75 Retention rate with retirements (percent) ............................................................................................................ 91 91 92 90 90 90 91 Retention rate without retirements (percent) ....................................................................................................... 95 97 96 95 94 94 95 Staff development (percent) ................................................................................................................................. N/A 71 67 70 72 74 75 Staff utilization (percent) ..................................................................................................................................... N/A 67 71 72 75 75 78 Leadership (percent) ............................................................................................................................................. N/A 75 78 79 80 80 80 Organizational climate (percent) .......................................................................................................................... N/A 67 71 74 76 75 76 

Source: GAO. Note: N/A indicates the information is not available or the target is not applicable. In fiscal year 2006, we will add two internal operations measures to our list of performance measures on which we report. These measures will help us determine how well our internal operations (1) help employees get their jobs done 

and (2) improve employees’ quality of life in the workplace. 
240 

FIGURE 1.—GAO’S SELECTED MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005 

[In millions of dollars] 

Description Amount 

Reduced funding for a missile defense system ............................................................................................................ 4.7 

In an April 2003 report, we stated that to successfully develop an effective and suitable missile defense 

system, the Missile Defense Agency must be willing to adopt knowledge-based acquisition practices that have 

made other developers successful. Our report acknowledged that the agency’s development strategy for the 

Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program included knowledge-based practices, but concluded that the agency had 

not implemented two important practices: (1) using well-developed technologies during system integration 

and (2) fully testing a system before fielding it. In response, the Missile Defense Agency is scaling back development of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program until technologies are mature. Over a 5-year period— 

from fiscal years 2005 through 2009—program funding will be reduced by about $5.2 billion, which has a 

net present value of about $4.7 billion. 

Avoided higher costs associated with a nuclear waste disposal process ................................................................... 4.5 

In a June 2003 report, we recommended that DOE pursue legislative clarification from the Congress because of a legal challenge that threatened DOE’s ability to proceed with its less costly strategy for treating 

and disposing of radioactive tank wastes with lower concentrations of radioactivity. DOE estimated that pursuing a more expensive treatment and disposal strategy suitable for wastes with higher concentrations of radioactivity would increase waste treatment disposal costs by $55 billion to $60 billion at its Savannah River 

Site. The fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act contained a provision that clarified DOE’s authority to follow its planned treatment and disposal strategy, thus avoiding a more costly process. We calculated that the net present value of the cost avoidance for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 was about $4.5 

billion. 

Improved the Army’s force structure ............................................................................................................................. 3.4 

In a report examining the Army’s force structure, we recommended that the Army establish mission criteria 

to provide a firmer basis for its Strategic Reserve, Domestic Support, and Homeland Defense force requirements. Such criteria would help to ensure that the Army had the right number and types of soldiers available 

for these purposes. Rather than request additional end strength, the Army reconfigured its existing force’s 

structure. In April 2003, DOD reported that the Army had included force structure changes in its fiscal year 

2004 budget, which supported increased units for military police; military intelligence; special forces; and 

chemical, civil affairs, and psychological operations. Based on this action, the Army has been able to rebalance its force structure to create needed units with minimal increases in authorized end strength. The 

amount shown represents the net present value of the force structure changes over a 5-year period (fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008). 

Reduced the cost of federally subsidized housing projects ......................................................................................... 2.7 

We determined that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had not developed the systems it needed to track the status of unexpended balances in its project-based Section 8 housing program 

and therefore could not use this information to help manage the program and formulate budget requests for 

it. As a result of our work, the Congress required HUD to better enforce the legislative provisions requiring the 

recapture of capital funds not being utilized by public housing authorities. In fiscal year 2005, we documented—using HUD data—that a financial benefit of about $2.7 billion in current dollars resulted from 

HUD’s recapture of about $2.5 billion of fiscal year 2003 dollars. 

Avoided costs associated with higher payment rates at skilled nursing homes ......................................................... 2.0 

In 2002, we assessed the impact of a 16.6 percent increase in Medicare’s daily rate for skilled nursing facilities on nurse staffing ratios. Our analysis showed that nurse staffing ratios changed little from April 1, 

2001, through September 30, 2002—the period during which the rate increase was in effect. In fiscal year 

2003, the cost to the federal government of reinstating the payment rate increase was approximately $1 billion per year. Since we issued our report, the Congress has considered reinstating the rate increase, but it 

has chosen not to, largely on the basis of our analysis. The net present value of the annual cost avoidance 

for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 is $2 billion. 

Increased tax revenues .................................................................................................................................................. 1.8 

We reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) did not have systems or procedures in place to allow it 

to identify and actively pursue unpaid tax cases that may have some collection potential. Based on our work, 

IRS has taken action to better assess the potential for collecting unpaid tax assessment cases and has used 

that information to better target its collection efforts. Specifically, in 2004 IRS began implementing a sophisticated modeling technology to identify productive and less productive cases to ensure that its resources are 

devoted to cases with a higher likelihood of collection and to help prevent premature suspension of collection 

efforts. IRS’s analysis of the yield on collection cases after employing this modeling in fiscal year 2004 shows 

that this yield increased by about $1.8 billion (in current year dollars), or 8.4 percent from the previous year 

(fiscal year 2003), without significant staffing level increases. 

Ensured continued investment in the General Services Administration’s (GSA) online purchasing system ............... 1.3 
241 

FIGURE 1.—GAO’S SELECTED MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005— 

Continued 

[In millions of dollars] 

Description Amount 

As of 2003, GSA had spent $84 million to develop, implement, and maintain Advantage, a system for ordering products and services online. However, 5 years after the system was launched, only 35 percent of all 

government-contracted vendors participated in the program, and agencies were largely using the system to 

compare pricing. To ensure GSA’s level of investment matched customer needs, we recommended that the 

agency develop a business case for a system such as Advantage, and in January 2005, GSA selected a new 

business strategy that would significantly enhance the system’s capabilities to serve as a broker between 

buyers and suppliers and provide agencies with an automated tool for formulating acquisition requirements 

and developing requests for quotes. GSA projects over $1.5 billion in financial benefits to result from electronic transactions, spend analysis (analysis of expenditures that shows how money is spent on goods and 

services), a searchable procurement data repository, and competitive pricing. This financial benefit has a net 

present value of just over $1.3 billion. 

Reduced Navy and Air Force appropriations ................................................................................................................. 1.3 

DOD policy requires the Defense Working Capital Fund to maintain cash levels to cover 7 to 10 days of 

operational cash and 6 months of capital asset disbursements. Our analysis showed that the January 2004 

reported actual cash balance for the Air Force Working Capital Fund exceeded the 10-day cash requirement by 

about $1.5 billion, and the Navy’s Working Capital Fund reported actual cash balance exceeded the budgeted 

cash balance by $659 million and $408 million at the end of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, respectively. The 

Congress reduced the Navy and Air Force fiscal year 2005 Operation and Maintenance appropriations by just 

under $1.3 billion due to excessive cash amounts. 

Eliminated the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Prometheus 1 project ............................... 1.1 

We issued a report questioning whether NASA had established the initial justification for its investment in 

the Prometheus 1 project and how the agency planned to ensure that critical nuclear power and propulsion 

system technologies were sufficiently developed to support deep space probes like the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. We also reported that the approved Prometheus 1 funding profile was inadequate to support the 

planned mission—a launch to Jupiter’s Icy Moons in 2015. NASA has subsequently deferred the Jupiter Icy 

Moons Orbiter mission indefinitely, reducing the agency’s funding needs by about $1.22 billion through fiscal 

year 2009; the net present value of this reduction is over $1.1 billion. 

Reduced the budget request for a new foreign assistance program ........................................................................... 1.0 

In March and June 2004, we provided the Congress with information to help it assess the President’s $2.5 

billion fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Millennium Challenge Account—a new foreign assistance program intended to provide economic assistance to countries that demonstrate a commitment to ruling justly, 

investing in people, and encouraging economic freedom. Our work provided the Congress with a framework for 

identifying relationships and trade-offs between funding levels, compact length, and number of compacts 

(i.e., agreements). Our analysis indicated that by reducing assistance target levels, the length of compacts or 

both with participating countries, the program could operate at a lower funding level. We also estimated the 

effect of funding compacts partly from future appropriations. Our work facilitated the Congress’s decision to 

reduce the appropriation for the Millennium Challenge Account in fiscal year 2005 to $1.5 billion. 

Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured in dollar 

terms. During fiscal year 2005, we recorded a total of 1,409 other benefits. For instance, we documented 75 instances where information we provided to the Congress 

resulted in statutory or regulatory changes, 595 instances where federal agencies 

improved services to the public, and 739 instances where agencies improved core 

business processes or governmentwide reforms were advanced. These actions 

spanned the full spectrum of national issues, from ensuring the safety of commercial 

airline passengers to identifying abusive tax shelters. See figure 2 for additional examples of GAO’s other benefits in fiscal year 2005. 
242 

FIGURE 2.—GAO’S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005 

Description 

OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO CHANGE 

LAWS 

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108–458).Our work is reflected in this law in different ways. In our May 2004 testimony 

on the use of biometrics for aviation security, we reported on the need to 

identify how biometrics will be used to improve aviation security prior to 

making a decision to design, develop, and implement biometrics. Using information from our statement, the House introduced a bill on July 22, 2004, 

directing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to establish system requirements and performance standards for using biometrics, and establish processes to (1) prevent individuals from using assumed identities 

to enroll in a biometric system and (2) 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. 

We conducted a body of work assessing the physical screening of airport passengers and their checked baggage. We found that the installation of systems that are in line with airport baggage conveyor systems may result in 

financial benefits, according to TSA estimates for nine airports. We also 

found that the effectiveness of the advance passenger screening under the 

process known as Secure Flight was not certain. TSA agreed to take corrective actions in these areas, and the Congress required TSA in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act to prepare a plan and guidelines for installing in-line baggage screening systems, and enacted measures to promote Secure Flight’s development and implementation. 

Real ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109– 

13).

We reported on the verification of identity documents for drivers’ licenses, noting that visual inspection of key documents lent itself to possible identity 

fraud. To demonstrate this, our investigators were able to obtain licenses in 

two states using counterfeit documents and the Social Security numbers of 

deceased persons. The Congress established federal identification standards for state drivers’ licenses and other such documents and mandated 

third-party verification of identity documents presented to apply for a driver’s license. 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Pub. L. No. 108–375).

We assisted the Congress in crafting major improvements to a program intended to compensate individuals who worked in DOE facilities and developed illnesses related to radiation and hazardous materials exposure. In a 

2004 report, we identified features of the originally enacted program that 

would likely lead to inconsistent benefit outcomes for claimants, in part because the program depended on the varying state workers compensation 

systems to provide some benefits. We also presented several options for 

improving the consistency of benefit outcomes and a framework for assessing these options. When the Congress enacted the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, it revamped this energy employees’ benefit program. Among other changes, this law federalized 

the payment of worker compensation benefits for eligible energy contractor 

employees and provided a schedule of uniform benefit payments. 
243 

FIGURE 2.—GAO’S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 

2005—Continued 

Description 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

(Pub. L. No. 108–447).

Our work over the past several years has helped the Congress to establish 

and assess the impacts of the recreational fee demonstration program. 

Under this trial program, the Congress authorized the National Park Service, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the 

Forest Service to charge fees to visitors to, among other things, reduce the 

maintenance backlog at federal parks and historic places and protect these 

lands from visitor impacts. Since the program’s inception in 1996, we have 

identified issues that needed to be addressed to improve the program’s effectiveness that included providing (1) a more permanent source of funds 

to enhance stability, since the current program had to be reauthorized every 

2 years; (2) the participating agencies with greater flexibility in how and 

where they apply fee revenues; and (3) improvements in interagency coordination in the collection and use of revenue fees to better serve visitors by 

making the payment of fees more convenient and equitable and reducing 

visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees being charged at nearby or 

adjacent federal recreational sites. As a result of this body of work, the 

Congress addressed these issues by passing the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act in December 2004. This act permits federal land management agencies to continue charging fees at campgrounds, rental cabins, high-impact recreation areas, and day-use sites that have certain facilities. The act also provides for a nationally consistent interagency program, more on-the-ground improvements at recreation sites across the nation, enhanced visitor services, a new national pass for use across interagency federal recreation sites and services, and public involvement in the 

program. 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 

(Pub. L. No. 108–447).

Our work is reflected in this law in different ways. At the time of our August 

2003 report, the original 1999 expiration date for the franchise fund pilots 

operating at the Departments of Commerce, Veterans Affairs, Health and 

Human Services, the Interior, and the Treasury and at the Environmental 

Protection Agency had been extended three times. These franchise funds, 

authorized by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, are part of 

a group of 34 intragovernmental revolving funds that were created to provide common administrative support services required by many federal 

agencies. For example, the Commerce Franchise Fund’s business line provides IT infrastructure support services to the agency. We concluded that 

increasing the period of authorization would help ease concerns of current 

and potential clients about franchise fund stability and might allow franchise funds to add new business lines, and we suggested that the authorizations be extended for longer periods. The Congress provided permanent 

authority to the Treasury franchise fund in the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2005, passed on December 8, 2004. 

In 2003, we reported that most agencies could not retain the proceeds from 

the sale of unneeded property and this acted as a disincentive to disposing 

of unneeded property. We stated in our high-risk report on federal real 

property that it may make sense to permit agencies to retain proceeds for 

reinvestment in real property where a need exists. Subsequently, in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, the Congress authorized the Administrator of GSA to retain the net proceeds from the conveyance of real and 

related personal property. These proceeds are to be deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund and are to be used as authorized for GSA’s real property capital needs. 

In December 2003, we reported that 184 out of 213 Alaska Native villages are 

affected, to some extent, by flooding and erosion. However, these villages 

often have difficulty qualifying for federal assistance to combat their flooding and erosion problems. In our report, we recommended that the Denali 

Commission adopt a policy to guide investment decisions and project designs in villages affected by flooding and erosion. In this legislation, the 

Congress provided the Secretary of the Army with the authority to carry out 

‘‘structural and non-structural projects for storm damage prevention and 

reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including 

relocation of affected communities and construction of replacement facilities.’’ 
244 

FIGURE 2.—GAO’S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 

2005—Continued 

Description 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 

(Pub. L. No. 108–447).

To improve the federal government’s ability to collect billions of dollars of outstanding criminal debt, we recommended in a 2001 report, that the Department of Justice work with other agencies involved in criminal debt collection, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Department 

of the Treasury (Treasury), and OMB, to develop a strategic plan that would 

improve interagency processes and coordination with regard to criminal 

debt collection activities. The conference report that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, directed the Attorney General to assemble an interagency task force for the purposes of better managing, accounting for, reporting, and collecting criminal debt. 

OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO 

IMPROVE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC 

Encouraged improvements in the process 

for ensuring states’ compliance with 

education laws for the disabled.

Our report found that the Department of Education’s (Education) system for 

resolving noncompliance with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education 

Act is protracted. We found that resolution of noncompliance cases often 

takes several years, in part because Education took a year on average from 

the time it identified noncompliance to issue a report citing the noncompliance. We therefore recommended that Education improve its system of resolving noncompliance by shortening the amount of time it takes to issue a 

report of noncompliance and by tracking changes in response times under 

the new monitoring process. In response to our recommendation, Education 

has instituted an improved process for managing and tracking the various 

phases of the monitoring process, which includes the creation of a database to facilitate this tracking. This new tracking system will enable Education to better monitor the status of existing noncompliance, and thus enable the department to take appropriate action when states fail to come 

into compliance in a timely manner. 

Identified a weakness in Medicare’s telephone assistance service.In 2004, we found that the 24-hour 1–800–MEDICARE help line, operated by 

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), did not answer 10 

percent of the calls we placed to test its accuracy, often because it automatically transferred some calls to claims administration contractors that 

were not open for business at the time of the call. This call transfer process prohibited callers from accessing information during nonbusiness 

hours, even though 1–800–MEDICARE operates 24 hours a day. As a result, 

we recommended that CMS revise the routing procedures of 1–800–MEDICARE to ensure that calls are not transferred or referred to claims administration contractors’ help lines during nonbusiness hours. In response, CMS 

finished converting its call routing procedures. As a result, calls placed 

after normal business hours will be routed to the main 1–800–MEDICARE 

help line for assistance. 
245 

FIGURE 2.—GAO’S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 

2005—Continued 

Description 

Highlighted the need for increased security 

at a federal disease research facility.

United States Department of Agriculture scientists at the Plum Island Animal 

Disease Center research contagious animal diseases that have been found 

in other countries. The mission of the facility, now administered by DHS, is 

to develop strategies for protecting the nation’s animal industries and exports from these foreign animal diseases. In our September 2003 report, 

Combating Bioterrorism: Actions Needed to Improve Security at Plum Island 

Animal Disease Center, we made several recommendations to improve security at the facility and reduce vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Among other 

things, we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, enhance incident response capability by increasing the size of the guard force. DHS has informed us that 

this has been completed. According to the Director of Plum Island, DHS has 

more than doubled the number of guards assigned on each shift on Plum 

Island. 

OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO PROMOTE SOUND AGENCY AND GOVERNMENTWIDE MANAGEMENT 

Recommended a process to increase the 

efficiency of DOD procurements.

DOD spending on service contracts approaches $100 billion annually, but 

DOD’s management of services procurement is inefficient and ineffective 

and the dollars are not always well spent. Many private companies have 

changed management practices based on analyzing spending patterns and 

coordinating procurement efforts in order to achieve major savings. We recommended that DOD adopt the effective spend analysis processes used by 

these leading companies and use technology to automate spend analysis to 

make it repeatable. In response, DOD is developing new technology to do 

that. According to DOD and contractor project managers, one phase of the 

project was completed in December 2004. In March 2005, DOD approved a 

business case analysis to seek follow-on funding for developing a DODwide spend analysis system. 

Improved the Air Force’s oversight of purchase card transactions.As part of our audit of Air Force purchase card controls, we identified transactions that Air Force officials acknowledged to be fraudulent as well as 

potentially fraudulent transactions that the Air Force had not identified. To 

improve Air Force oversight of purchase card activity and facilitate the 

identification of systemic weaknesses and deficiencies in existing internal 

control and the development of additional control activities, we recommended that the Air Force establish an agencywide database of known 

purchase card fraud cases. In lieu of establishing a separate agencywide 

database, during fiscal year 2003, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations initiated quarterly reporting on its purchase card investigations to the 

DOD IG for macro-level analysis of systemic weaknesses in the program. 

Our ongoing collaboration with the DOD IG on DOD’s purchase card program confirmed that the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations is 

working effectively with DOD’s IG on data-mining techniques for detection 

of potentially improper and fraudulent purchase card transactions. As a result of our work, the Air Force has taken action to reduce the financial risk 

associated with undetected fraud and abuse in its purchase card program. 
246 

FIGURE 2.—GAO’S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 

2005—Continued 

Description 

Encouraged the Census Bureau to produce 

training materials in other languages.

For the 2000 Census, the United States Census Bureau (Bureau) printed material used to train census workers only in English, except in Puerto Rico 

where training materials were available in Spanish. However, to better prepare census workers—some of whom speak Spanish as their first language—to locate migrant farm workers and other hard-to-count groups, we 

recommended that the Bureau consider providing training materials in languages other than English to targeted areas. In response to our recommendation, the Bureau is researching foreign-language data collection 

methods as part of its preparations for the 2006 Census test and, more 

generally, plans to identify areas and operations that will require in-language training materials for areas with very large, new migrant populations 

where it will not be possible to hire bilinguals. Moreover, the Bureau’s June 

2005 request for proposals for a Field Data Collection Automation System 

includes a requirement for the contractor to provide training applications 

and materials in English and Spanish for the handheld computers enumerators are to use to count nonrespondents. 

Source: GAO. 

One way we measure our effect on improving the government’s accountability, operations, and services is by tracking the percentage of recommendations that we 

made 4 years ago that have since been implemented. At the end of fiscal year 2005, 

85 percent of the recommendations we made in fiscal year 2001 had been implemented, primarily by executive branch agencies. Putting these recommendations 

into practice will generate tangible benefits for the nation over many years. 

During fiscal year 2005, experts from our staff testified at 179 congressional hearings covering a wide range of complex issues (see table 4). For example, our senior 

executives testified on improving the security of nuclear material, federal oversight 

of mutual funds, and the management and control of DOD’s excess property. Over 

70 of our testimonies were related to high-risk areas and programs (see table 5). 

TABLE 4.—Selected Testimony Issues, Fiscal Year 2005 

Goal 1: Address Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial Security of the American 

People 

Head Start grants management 

Retirement options for seniors 

Postal service reform legislation 

Wildland fire management 

National air traffic system 

Providing services to seriously injured 

veterans 

Endangered Species Act 

Preparing for influenza pandemic 

Long-term health care costs and 

government budgets 

Veterans’ disability claims 

Medicaid financing issues 

Amtrak’s Acela train 

Rural housing service 

Federal oversight of the E-rate program 

Overseeing the U.S. food supply 

Energy demand in the 21st century 

Social Security reform 

Meeting the future demand for energy in 

the United States 

Protecting nuclear material handled at 

science and environmental sites 

Federal real property 

Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Globalization 

Army’s modular forces 

Acquisition challenges facing the Navy’s 

DD(X) destroyer program 

Oil for Food program 

Managing violations of restricted air 

space 

Protecting U.S. officials overseas from 

terrorist attacks 

Implementing laws that protect the 

security of information 

U.S. passport fraud 

Tactical aircraft modernization 

Unmanned aerial vehicles 

Federal oversight of mutual funds to 

ensure investor security 

DOD’s business transformation 

DOD’s national security personnel 

system 

Cargo security strategies 

DOD security clearances 

Condition of Coast Guard aircraft and 

ships used in deep waters 

Port security 

Transportation security issues 

Acquisition challenges facing the Army’s 

future combat systems 
247 

Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government’s Role and How it Does Business 

Long-term fiscal issues affecting the 

federal government 

Air Force procurement protests 

Space shuttle workforce issues 

Management and control of DOD’s 

excess property 

High-risk federal programs 

Improper Payments Information Act 

Gaps in military pay and benefits 

Human capital transformation at DHS 

Reducing the tax gap 

Pricing federal multiple award contracts 

Army National Guard travel 

reimbursement issues 

Agencies’ continuity of operations plans 

21st century challenges for the federal 

government 

Preparing for emergencies at federal 

agencies 

U.S. government financial statements 

Performance budgeting 

Space acquisitions and investment 

planning 

DHS’s Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System 

GAO’S HIGH-RISK PROGRAM

Issued to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our high-risk update, first 

used 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 5 details our 

2005 high-risk list. 

TABLE 5.—GAO’S 2005 HIGH-RISK LIST 

2005 high-risk area Year designated 

high risk 

Addressing challenges in broad-based transformations: 

Strategic Human Capital Management 1 .................................................................................................... 2001 

U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term Outlook 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 

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 

Managing federal contracting more effectively: 

DOD Contract Management ........................................................................................................................ 1992 

DOE Contract Management ......................................................................................................................... 1990 

NASA Contract Management ....................................................................................................................... 1990 

Management of Interagency Contracting ................................................................................................... 2005 

Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of tax law administration: 

Enforcement of Tax Laws 1 2 ...................................................................................................................... 1990 

IRS Business Systems Modernization 3 ....................................................................................................... 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 

HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing Assistance Programs ................................. 1994 

Other: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control Modernization ................................................ 1995 

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. 2 Two high-risk areas—collection of unpaid taxes and earned income credit noncompliance—have been consolidated to make this area.

3 The IRS financial management high-risk area has been incorporated in this high-risk area. 

Source: GAO. 
248 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

We are grateful for the Congress’s continued support of our joint effort to improve 

government and for providing the resources that allow us to be a world-class professional services organization. We are proud of the positive impact we have been able 

to affect 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. 

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions the 

Members of the Committee may have. 
249 

APPENDIX I.—SERVING THE CONGRESS—GAO’S STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK

COST FOR 50 ADDITIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS

Senator ALLARD. Well thank you for your testimony. Total, you’re 

going to have about a $25 million request, which is 5 percent over 

fiscal year 2006 and we’ll look very closely at your request. We’ve 

got 50 new employees that are coming on. You have about 3,217 

employees now, according to the facts that I have here. Now, we’ve 

tried to break that out on the employee costs at $7.5 million. So 

I was just doing some quick math here. That’s $150,000 per em-
250 

ployee. I’m kind of curious. That’s not salary. I’m sure there’s benefits figured in there, and insurance, and other things, retirement 

plan, everything else. So I just want to have you verify how it is, 

that you come up with $150,000. 

Mr. WALKER. Sure. 

Let me provide an overview, and I’m going to turn to Sallyanne 

Harper to provide some additional information, Mr. Chairman, 

with your indulgence. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. WALKER. The compensation adjustments are for several 

things. Number one, to bring us up to our full compliment of 3,217. 

We’ve been authorized that for a full FTE level, but we haven’t 

been there in several years. We’re now on track to do that and, 

therefore, to the extent that we do that, we’re going to need some 

money to be able to maintain that next year. 

Second, for pay increases. Our policy is, if you’re performing at 

meets expectation or better on all applicable competencies and 

you’re paid within applicable competitive compensation ranges, 

you’re going to get some across-the-board pay adjustment. In addition to that, you’re going to get an additional adjustment based on 

how you do relative to your peers. 

Senator ALLARD. So the $7.5 million not only includes the new 

50 employees, but also there is some pay increase adjustments figured in. 

Mr. WALKER. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. So the $150,000 is entirely too generous. 

Mr. WALKER. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. And then, we have 

the 50 employees, not all of which are going to be hired on day one. 

They’ll be hired throughout the year. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. And depending upon what you finally give us for 

a budget, it will determine how many we can hire, if we can hire 

them, and when we can hire them. 

CALCULATING THE TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT

But you raise an excellent point, which I would like to reinforce. 

And that is, we’re trying to get our employees to understand more 

about the concept of total compensation, which you and I have 

talked about before. It’s not just how much you pay in cash, in the 

form of salary, bonuses, incentive awards, and things of that nature, but it’s also how much you receive in the form of healthcare, 

pension, and other benefits. In our budget, the average load factor 

that we have to bare directly is about 24 percent, I believe. 

However, when you consider the fact that some costs are borne 

by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), with regard to 

things like the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) cost, et 

cetera, the actual load factor is about 31 percent. So for every $1 

we pay somebody, they receive compensation of $1.31 because of 

other benefits that ultimately, the taxpayers have to pay. 

But I would ask Sallyanne if she’s got anything she wants to add 

on this. 

Ms. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that—— 
251 

Senator ALLARD. So, I just want to clarify, if I might, before we move to the last statement. So, if you pay them a $1, there’s onethird of that—— 

Mr. WALKER. Added—— 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Added on. It would add on as addi- tional benefits. So the $1 that you talk about in actual cash, becomes $1.32 because of the benefits of the employee. 

Mr. WALKER. Two points, Mr. Chairman. For our budget, which is before you, the $1 becomes $1.24. For our financial statements, 

which is important, which is ultimately what the taxpayers have 

to bear, $1 becomes $1.31. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. Okay. 

Ms. HARPER. The only addition I would make, Mr. Chairman, is 

that we do disproportionately hire into the analyst core and that 

is a higher salary rate in general, than other portions of our budget. So the evaluators, the analysts, and particularly the specialists 

are going to have a higher initial compensation rate than people in 

the administrative and professional services community. 

Mr. WALKER. It’s important, Mr. Chairman, to note for the 

record, that last year, over 90 percent of the people that we hired 

as auditors, investigators, analysts, evaluators, and attorneys had 

advanced degrees from top schools in the country. We are hiring 

some of the Nation’s best and brightest, and it’s very, very important that we be able to compensate them appropriately, because we 

are only as good as our people. 

Senator ALLARD. Particularly in what you’re trying to accomplish, that’s your personnel incentive. 

Mr. WALKER. Eighty percent of our budget is personnel cost. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. And so, if we don’t get adequately funded, it starts 

cutting into the bone pretty quickly. 

EARLY RETIREMENTS

Senator ALLARD. Let me move on to early retirements. Would 

you please explain your criteria for approving voluntary early retirement applications and ensuring that areas where there is a 

supply and demand imbalance or a recruiting challenge, are not 

negatively impacted? 

Mr. WALKER. Well thank you for the question and let me also 

thank you and your colleagues for giving us the legislative authority that we needed to make more intelligent decisions in this area. 

Basically, several years ago, we sought and the Congress gave us 

authority to be able to target early retirement offers to a greater 

extent, than previously was the case; you also gave us the authority to say no. Basically, we’re trying to use early retirement offers 

to help realign GAO’s workforce, to be able to reallocate resources 

from areas where we have more supply than demand, to areas 

where we have more demand than supply. We’re also trying to use 

it to try to help with succession planning. Because as you probably 

recall, Mr. Chairman, before I came to GAO, we had a hiring freeze 

for about 5 years. We were downsized 40 percent. And so, we had 

a real gap in our development pipeline and a very high and increasing percentage of people that were going to be eligible for retirement. 
252 

The bottom line is anybody can come forward and seek early retirement. But whether or not they’re going to be approved, is based 

upon what we need from a workforce standpoint to meet our client 

demands, and we also consider the performance of the individual. 

We’re not looking to lose people in areas where we have supply and 

demand imbalances and ones that are top performers. We’re looking to try to use this as a strategic workforce realignment tool. 

Most people that come forward are approved, but not all. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S MARKET-BASED PAY SYSTEM

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now let’s go to your GAO pay system. 

You’ve gone into it in some detail already. What are the major objectives of your market-based pay system and how would you assess your success in meeting those objectives? 

Mr. WALKER. There are a number of objectives, Mr. Chairman. 

Number one, the overall objective is that we want to be able to attract, retain, motivate, and reward a top flight workforce. Compensation is one element to do that, but it’s only one. As you know, 

Mr. Chairman, those of us—yourself, myself, all of us here included, don’t come into Government to maximize our net worth. We 

come into Government to maximize our abilities and to make a difference. And it’s not just about the money, it’s also about the difference that you can make in the lives of others. 

But we need to be competitive with those organizations that we 

actually compete for talent. Whether that be the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), whether that be the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), whether that be the think tanks, or whether that 

be the major accounting firms, whom we actually compete with for 

talent, based upon hiring and to whom we lose people. So we wanted to make sure that we achieve that objective. We also wanted to 

make sure that we were targeting our limited resources. Because, 

we have limited resources. Therefore, we are targeting money to 

where the market requires it and where performance supports it. 

We want to target our dollars based on skills, knowledge, and performance. 

And so my view is, by conducting our first ever competitive compensation study in the history of GAO, which was created in 1921, 

we are now in a much better position to provide reasonable assurance that we are paying competitively and allocating our dollars 

more intelligently. I think that’s not only in our interest, it’s in the 

Congress’ and the country’s interest. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. I applaud you for those efforts in that area. 

They’re not unique in the private sector, but certainly unique on 

the Government’s sector. 

CHANGES TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S PAY

SYSTEM IN THE PAST YEAR

Now, what changes in the pay system have occurred in the last 

year? Anything specific that you want to highlight for us? 

Mr. WALKER. The biggest changes that have occurred in the last 

year, and when I say the last year, I’m including this current fiscal 

year. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 
253 

Mr. WALKER. We now have implemented the new market-based 

compensation ranges. That’s number one. Number two, we have 

also implemented a new system for determining annual pay adjustments for all of our personnel. And number three, the effects of the 

restructuring that I mentioned before, the so-called Band II level 

personnel, that has taken place. Let me briefly touch on that, as 

you know, under the old system of compensation in Government, 

everybody had the right to be paid at the pay cap, irrespective of 

their performance. It was an entitlement. It wasn’t a matter of if 

somebody was going to make the pay cap, it was only a matter of 

when they were going to make the pay cap. Because until we received an exemption from the Congress, we had to give the acrossthe-board pay adjustment that the executive branch had to give 

every year to all employees, irrespective of their performance. And 

believe it or not, on the executive branch side, even unacceptable 

performers are by law, entitled to that adjustment, which I would 

respectfully suggest Congress may want to reconsider. Now, there’s 

not very many GAO employees in that category, okay? But intellectually it makes no sense. 

So we have implemented new competitive compensation ranges. 

There were pluses and minuses to that. There were some of our occupations and some levels, where we’ve raised our pay ranges, both 

the cap as well as the minimum, are subject to statutory limits. As 

you know, we can’t pay what we call a Band III, which is an assistant director, more than a GS–15, step 10 level. And so, that’s a 

constraint. 

But below that, it’s market based and everybody has the opportunity to make the pay cap, but not necessarily the right. For the 

higher levels you have to perform in excess of certain levels in 

order to be in top end of the pay range. The reason is, because 

there is an overlap with the next level of responsibility. Our philosophy is that you can justify paying people at a lower level, who are 

really strong performers as much as people as the next level, but 

you can’t justify paying below average performers, at a lower level 

of responsibility, more money than somebody at the next level, who 

might be a higher performer would be paid. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

BAND II RESTRUCTURING

Mr. WALKER. Now, the most challenging aspect of this, Mr. 

Chairman, has to do with this Band II restructuring. And I’ll give 

you a few stats to bring it to life. We had 1,238 Band II’s when 

we started this process. That’s out of about 3,200 employees. So 

you can see, that’s the largest component of our workforce. When 

we received the results of the competitive compensation study, we 

had to make the decision on which one of those 1,238 should be put 

in the higher pay range, which gives them a chance to make up to 

$10,000 more, and which ones should not. In some cases, individuals may be making more than they should be making, based upon 

the market ranges. We had an extensive process that resulted in 

everybody being able to apply. Of the 1,238, 794 applied, 757 were 

deemed eligible, 409 were initially placed into the higher Band IIB 

range. Seventy-eight of the ones who were not originally placed, appealed directly to me. I placed 19 of the 78 into Band IIB. In addi-
254 

tion, five, who didn’t even appeal to me, were placed into Band IIB 

because I modified the relative performance criteria. Therefore, 

some individuals benefited from that change, even through they did 

not appeal. 

So in summary, 433 or 35 percent of all our Band II’s, were 

placed in the higher pay range. There are 236 people who, when 

we made the decisions based upon their roles, responsibility, relative performance, and potential, did not justify being placed into 

the higher pay range, but were already getting paid in the higher 

pay range. So they were making in excess of competitive compensation levels. For those people, we did not cut anybody’s pay, because 

they played by the rules. It wouldn’t be right. It wouldn’t be fair. 

At the same time, if they were already paid in excess of competitive compensation levels, we didn’t give them the automatic acrossthe-board adjustments because they were already paid in excess of 

competition compensation levels. But we did give them the right to 

make additional pay increases, based on their performance. And a 

vast majority did get some pay increase even if they didn’t get the 

across-the-board adjustment. They will, if they end up getting 

moved to the next level, or as pay ranges change over time. So 

that’s where we are. And I apologize, that took a little bit of time, 

but it’s a fairly complicated matter. 

EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF NEW PAY SYSTEM

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I want to follow up a little more on that. 

What is the morale, after you’ve implemented that system, among 

the employees? 

Mr. WALKER. We do an annual confidential electronic employee 

feedback survey, which we’ll do in July and that will give us more 

concrete information on morale. I will give you my opinion, based 

upon extensive interaction with our employees, talking to our managing directors, talking to our Employee Advisory Council, meeting 

with our employees, and answering their questions. 

My view is that there is no easy way to tell somebody that their 

pay is in excess of competitive compensation levels. There’s no easy 

way to tell somebody that you are not going to continue to receive 

across-the-board adjustments that you’ve been receiving year, after 

year, after year. All right. And so my view is that there is a significant percentage of those individuals who were not placed into the 

higher pay range, that are disappointed, and I’m sure that that’s 

had some impact on their ‘‘morale.’’ 

At the same point in time, we’ve taken several steps to try to 

mitigate any adverse morale impact. First, rather than only allowing for competitive placements from the so-called lower IIA pay 

range to the higher IIB pay range, once a year, we’re going to have 

a second competitive placement process that will be effective near 

the end of June. We’ve erred on the side of generosity in allocating 

the number of competiting positions, so that more people will have 

an opportunity to make it. We’re going to do another competitive 

process next January. So basically, that means within a 12-month 

period of time, we will have had three placement cycles, and then 

we’ll move to an annual cycle after that. 

My view is that while a significant percentage of the people who 

did not get placed into IIB and my understanding is that there 
255 

were 345 people out of 3,200 roughly, who did not receive an 

across-the-board increase, because of this factor or because they 

were otherwise paid in excess competitive compensation levels. 

Obviously, a significant percentage of those people aren’t happy 

with the result. But that’s a subset of our workforce. That’s only 

about 11 percent of our workforce. I feel confident that not only 

was it the right thing to do, but it was necessary to do especially 

given tight budgets. 

The other thing that we did to try to ease the pain which, as I 

said before, was not to cut anybody’s pay. In addition we told every 

Band II employee who was onboard in January, that they would 

have the opportunity to earn up to what they could’ve earned 

under the old system, which in Washington, is almost $119,000 a 

year in cash compensation only, with benefits added on top of that. 

They will have that opportunity to earn that but at a slower rate 

than they could have under the old system. So we’re preserving 

their ability to make what they could have under the old system 

at a slower rate, but we’re providing them an opportunity to make 

more money if their skills, knowledge, roles, responsibility, and 

performance justify. Over the long term, this will clearly be a plus. 

In the short term, sometimes you have to have short-term pain to 

get long-term gain. And that’s where we’re at. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, we had a communication from one employee here, who felt that somehow or the other, he’d been promised that he was automatically going to get this annual increase 

and this particular year, it would have been a 2.6-percent increase. 

Do you have any response to that? 

Mr. WALKER. Well without knowing the facts, I can say this, I 

never committed, nor would I ever commit to pay an across-theboard pay increase to an individual who’s paid in excess of competitive compensation levels. I never committed to that, nor would I 

commit to that. 

POTENTIAL FOR GOVERNMENT-WIDE USE OF MARKET-BASED PAY

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Would you recommend this pay system 

be used Government-wide, at this point in time? 

Mr. WALKER. I believe there are several aspects of what we’ve 

done, that have potential merit for broad-based application 

throughout Government. Although each workforce is different, and 

therefore you need to make some changes. For example, I believe 

that individuals who perform at a meets expectation level or better, 

who are paid within competitive compensation ranges, should, at a 

minimum, receive some pay adjustment, based upon how the pay 

ranges change each year. 

In addition to that, I believe that any additional pay adjustment 

that people receive should be based on how they perform relative 

to their peer group. So that means, if you do like we do, where we 

set the bar high on expected performance and if you hit that bar 

for meets expectations, you’re going to get something. But how 

much extra you’re going to get, depends upon how you compare to 

your peer group, with the top performers getting more money than 

people who are good performers, but not top performers. 

I think that framework has a great deal of intellectual merit, and 

when I’ve gone around speaking to executives and others at other 
256 

agencies, they have found that it is a possible bridge from a system 

where 85 percent of the pay was on auto pilot and 15 percent was 

merit based, to one where everything relates to merit, but you’re 

going to get something, as long as you’re a solid performer. But 

how much more you’ll get, depends upon how you do relative to 

your peers. 

LESSONS LEARNED IN IMPLEMENTING MARKET-BASED PAY

The other thing that I think makes sense is you’ve got to do market-based compensation studies. Most agencies in Government 

have never done that. When you end up going to broad banding, 

you really need to make sure you make solid decisions on how 

many bands you set up, based upon roles and responsibilities. We 

made two mistakes in 1989. Hindsight is always 20/20. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, you learn. 

Mr. WALKER. Yes. We made mistakes in 1989. Number one, we 

combined two GS levels into one pay band that we shouldn’t have, 

because they were different roles of responsibility. That caused us 

to have to do this Band II restructuring, because it was clear that 

we had people with different roles and responsibilities. Second, the 

agency assumed that the GS pay ranges were reflective of the market. 

Now they may or may not have been in 1989, but they’re surely 

not today. So when agencies are moving forward, they have to be 

careful on how many pay bands they set up, based upon meaningful differences in roles and responsibilities. Then, they need to conduct competitive compensation studies to decide what the pay 

ranges ought to be for those bands. 

The last thing that I would say that’s relevant, is that it’s okay 

to have overlaps in pay ranges. It’s okay from somebody in a lower 

level to have the opportunity to make as much or more than the 

lower end of the pay range at the next level. But in my view, the 

only people that you can justify doing that for, are very strong performers. That shouldn’t be an entitlement. Because otherwise, you 

don’t get equal pay for work of equal value, over time. And that’s 

one of our objectives too, though I didn’t mention it before, that I 

think is an important principle. 

STAFFING UP TO REDUCE BACKLOGS

Senator ALLARD. Last year, you talked about your single biggest 

backlog was in the area of healthcare. Have you fully staffed that 

area, now? 

Mr. WALKER. I would ask Gene Dodaro to look at some data. We 

clearly still have a backlog in the healthcare area. But I would footnote before Gene gets into the area, the backlog we’re going to talk 

to you about, is engagements that we’ve accepted. And one has to 

use a note of caution, because there could be demand on the Hill 

that we haven’t received yet and have not accepted yet. In some 

cases, people don’t send us things because they already know that 

we have a backlog. So with that footnote, I would ask Gene to give 

you the backlog statistics. 

Senator ALLARD. Gene. 

Mr. DODARO. Mr. Chairman, we’ve begun addressing the backlog 

issue in healthcare and have made a little progress, but not much. 
257 

Basically what’s occurring there, because of large growth in 

healthcare expenditures and the interest in healthcare, particularly 

with the addition of the prescription drug benefit in Medicare part 

D, the requests and mandates from Congress just keep coming in 

at a fast pace. And there’s also more interest now in how FDA handles drug safety issues. There’s more interest in bioterrorism concerns and public health preparedness and readiness. So the range 

of issues just keeps growing, both in the Medicare program, as well 

as the Medicaid program, in public health, and in the regulatory 

structure. So we don’t believe we can make much more progress 

unless we add additional people. 

We’ve also reinforced a process that we’ve had in place for a 

number of years now, to look at potential mandates. When Congress introduces a bill, there’s often a requirement for a GAO study 

in there and so, we try to talk to the people once the bills are introduced. If it’s something that may not fall within our scope of our 

responsibility, or be something that we’ve already addressed we try 

to deal with it. 

The other big backlog area has been in homeland security. And 

of course following September 11, 2001, a lot of concerns about the 

areas that the Department of Homeland Security is addressing. 

And then, came Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, et cetera. And a lot 

of concern has, as everybody knows, emerged about the Federal 

Government’s response in that area. And so that has occurred in 

addition to the continuing concerns about air transportation, railroad security, port security, and all the other issues that have been 

addressed. So that’s been layered on top and is causing an additional backlog in that area, as well. 

Ms. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, to address the second—— 

Senator ALLARD. Ms. Harper. 

Ms. HARPER [continuing]. Part of your question, healthcare is on 

track to be fully staffed. Their hiring is going very well this year, 

so their staff should be fully onboard as we come toward the end 

of the fiscal year. 

Mr. WALKER. And the third area, Mr. Chairman, where there’s 

a big backlog, is natural resources and the environment, for fairly 

obvious reasons and yourself being from the West, you can appreciate some of those issues. 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE’S SUPPLY-DEMAND IMBALANCE

Senator ALLARD. Yes. Okay. I’d like to have you provide, unless 

you already have it with you, a comparative analysis of GAO’s current supply and demand imbalance between staff capacity and job 

demands of the last 5 and 10 years. Can we do that with current 

figures? 

Mr. WALKER. We’ll be happy to provide data for the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. For each of GAO’s 13 mission areas, please compare changes in the supply/demand imbalance between staff capacity and job demands for fiscal years 2006, 

2001, and 1996. How does GAO measure supply and demand as it relates to this 

issue? What criteria does GAO use to identify backlogs? 

Answer. As of the end of March 2006, GAO had 374 requests from Congress that 

had not yet been started (defined as the imbalance between supply and demand). 
258 

This compares to the 361 requests pending at the end of fiscal year 2001 and 349 

requests pending at the close of fiscal year 1996. 

Pending requests include those (1) assigned to teams but still awaiting screening 

at GAO’s weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting, (2) approved at the EAM to start 

but not yet begun, and (3) awaiting staff. It does not include work that is contingent 

on a future due date or event. 

The following table shows the number of pending requests for each of GAO’s 13 

mission teams as of the end of March 2006 and the end of fiscal year 2001. GAO’s 

mission teams were organized by the current Comptroller General beginning in fiscal year 2001, so information on their pending requests in 1996 does not exist. 

PENDING REQUESTS BY MISSION TEAM 

Current Team 2001 1 2006 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management (ASM) ............................................................................... 23 37 

Applied Research and Methods (ARM) ........................................................................................... 3 3 

Defense Capabilities and Management (DCM) .............................................................................. 8 21 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security (EWIS) ....................................................................... 18 23 

Financial Management and Assurance (FMA) ................................................................................ 1 44 

Financial Markets and Community Investment (FMCI) .................................................................. 15 13 

Health Care (HC) ............................................................................................................................ 84 82 

Homeland Security and Justice (HSJ) ............................................................................................. NA 45 

International Affairs and Trade (TAT) ............................................................................................ 7 12 

Information Technology (IT) ............................................................................................................ 17 12 

Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) ................................................................................... 59 54

Physical Infrastructure (PI) ............................................................................................................. 38 22 

Strategic Issues (SI) ....................................................................................................................... 12 6 

1 Tax Administration and Justice (TAJ) had 69 pending requests at the end of fiscal year 2001 and the Office of Special Investigations (0SI) had 7. TM was merged mainly into HSJ and SI and 0SI was merged mainly with FMA and the Office of General Counsel. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S HIGH RISK LIST

Senator ALLARD. Another area I wanted to cover before we bring 

things to a close is your high risk list. Can you give us a rating 

of how effective that program might be? 

Mr. WALKER. Well Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking that 

question. It’s a very timely question. I have to give credit to my 

predecessor, Chuck Bowsher and the individuals who were at GAO 

in the early 1990’s for creating the high risk list. It’s been public 

since around about 1992. Since I’ve been Comptroller General, I’ve 

tried to work with our GAO executives and others, to make it a 

much more strategic list. Not just focused on fraud, waste, abuse, 

and mismanagement which will never be zero, but also to address 

major transformation challenges facing the Federal Government 

and to take a more strategic approach. 

I’m pleased to say, that a very high percentage of our hearings 

and a very high percentage of our financial benefits and other accomplishments, are directly related to the high risk list. The Congress is focusing on the high risk list for the most part. GAO continues to focus on it. The administration is now working with us 

to create action plans for every high risk area. As you know, the 

President’s management agenda is based, in large part, on GAO’s 

high risk list and that is not an accident. 

Furthermore, GAO’s high risk program is being emulated in 

other countries, in other States, and localities and is now on the 

short list for an Innovations in Government Award from Harvard. 

Whether or not we’ll be selected, we’ve made the short list. This 

program is making a difference, and I think it’s an example of 

when you’re dealing with an entity that’s as vast as the Federal 

Government and when you’ve got limited resources, you need to fig-
259 

ure out some way to target. We can target, the Congress can target, the agencies can target whatever resources and authorities 

they have, to have the most impact. This has clearly been a valuable tool in getting that done. 

I don’t know if Gene has anything. 

HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE’S HIGH RISK LIST

Mr. DODARO. Mr. Chairman, I’ve been involved in the program 

since it was created back in 1990 and I can tell you, it has tremendous value over time in sustaining attention between administrations and with changes in the Congress. A lot of these problems require sustained attention over time. And even for some of them, 

the areas that are still on the high risk list, even though they have 

not been taken off yet, there’s been a lot of progress made because 

of this sustained attention. Medicare, for example, now has a 

means to measure the level of improper payments that they’re 

sending out. That didn’t exist when we put them on the list back 

in 1990 and that’s enabling them to measure the degree of progress 

that they’re making and target corrective actions. 

Tax enforcement, the latest measure of the tax gap had occurred 

back in 1988 and because that area has been on the high risk list, 

there has been a new estimate made of the tax gap, which is about 

$300 billion. In the Department of Energy (DOE) area for example, 

on contracting, since we’ve put that on the list, even though they’re 

not taking off yet, they’re now competing contracts, where they had 

not been before and other progress has been made. 

So it’s a very, very effective means and I could tell you, when 

Dave and I have met with heads of agencies, nobody really wants 

to be on the list and they’re making concerted progress to get off. 

And they see the benefits of also being on the list, to get attention 

to their area. 

Mr. WALKER. But let me footnote, Mr. Chairman, in addition to 

everything that Gene said, by taking a much more strategic and 

transformational approach to the high risk list, I must say, that I 

have actually received two telephone calls from heads of agencies, 

thanking us for putting them on the high risk list. And let me tell 

you why. Because one of the things that we’ve also done, is we’ve 

noted which items on the high risk list not only require action by 

the executive branch, but also require action by the Congress. And 

when you look at that high risk list, anything that has an asterisk, 

means that both branches of Government have to be involved to 

create a more positive future. In many cases, by putting an item 

on the high risk list, that provides attention and additional momentum for changes not just within the executive branch, but also 

within the legislative branch. One example of that, is a topic that 

you talked about earlier, namely human capital reform. We put 

that on our high risk list in January 2000. There’s been more done 

administratively and legislatively in the human capital area since 

January 2000, than the 20 years prior to that. Therefore, it can 

make a difference. It is making a difference. 
260 

CRITERIA FOR COMING ON AND OFF THE GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE’S HIGH RISK LIST

Senator ALLARD. Let me serve the role of a devil’s advocate, we 

have two that have been on there—DOE and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contract management. 

They’ve been on there forever. And there hasn’t seemed to be any 

improvement. Doesn’t that diminish the effectiveness of your program? 

Mr. WALKER. Well we’ve had a number that have come off over 

the years and we’ve had some that have come on over the years. 

I can assure you, that people don’t come off until they earn coming 

off. 

The other thing that is different here is that within 1 year of my 

coming on board, one of the things that we did working with GAO’s 

executives and also providing an opportunity for comments from 

the Congress and the executive branch, we came up with clearly 

defined, transparent, and consistently applied criteria for what it 

took to go on the list and what it took to come off the list. This 

has helped tremendously. 

And the last thing I would say is this, the current administration 

is taking the high risk list seriously, as evidenced by the fact that 

they’re working with us and the agencies to try to develop a specific action plan for each item to eventually get off the list. In some 

cases, it took years for people to get where they are, and it’s going 

to take years to get off. 

The most prominent example, Mr. Chairman, is that the Defense 

Department has 8 of 25 high risk areas individually and shares all 

6 of the Government-wide areas. So it has 14 of 25. And in many 

cases, Mr. Chairman, it’s not just because it’s going to take a long 

time to deal with it and there needs to be more attention in the 

executive branch, it’s because there needs to be more attention paid 

in the legislative branch. There needs to be more accountability 

than there has been, in many regards. 

Senator ALLARD. Have we ever had any legislative agencies on 

this list? 

Mr. WALKER. This list has been geared toward the executive 

branch, which is an overwhelming percentage of Federal revenues 

and expenditures. And as you might imagine, Mr. Chairman, that 

raises certain sensitivity issues, since we are a sister agency to 

other legislative branch agencies. 

Senator ALLARD. Just a thought I had. Okay. Before concluding 

the hearing, I would like to thank your staff for the exceptional 

work that they do to support this subcommittee. And in particular, 

Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn have been steadfast in their commitment to support our oversight of the Capitol Visitor Center. 

In addition, Gloria Jarmon and many of your other staff provide 

outstanding advice and guidance to the subcommittee routinely 

and we appreciate their efforts. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

There will be some additional questions that will be submitted 

to your agency for response in the record. 
261 

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

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

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Question. GAO’s budget requests 50 additional full-time equivalent employees. 

What is the full-year cost for the additional FTEs, and why isn’t this cost made 

clear in the budget justification? Answer. The full-year cost for 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff is about $5.8 million using an average annual salary of $116,362 including benefits. Our workforce plan projects that we will end fiscal year 2006 with an onboard strength of 

3,350 staff. This staffing level will position GAO to utilize 3,217 FTEs in fiscal year 

2006 and 3,267 FTEs in fiscal year 2007. 

The cost to support these staff in fiscal year 2007, assuming no other staffing 

changes, is included in the budget request as part of estimated annualization costs. 

The annualization cost represents the difference between the estimated costs to be 

paid in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. The annualization cost has been reduced by expected savings from leave-without-pay and part-time schedules, and includes the cost to maintain our student intern and knowledge transfer programs. 

The intern program has been an effective recruitment tool for permanent hires, especially in our specialized areas of accounting and financial management. The 

knowledge transfer program is a vital tool in our succession planning strategy to 

help ensure continuity of operations. 

Question. Given that GAO’s budget was cut below the request in fiscal year 2006, 

how has the agency managed to maintain the fully authorized level of FTEs? 

Answer. We expect to be able to maintain 3,217 FTEs in fiscal year 2006 primarily due to lower average compensation costs than estimated. We estimate our 

actual fiscal year 2006 compensation costs will be lower than we estimated in January 2005 at the time our budget request was prepared, primarily due to: (1) a lower 

on-board strength at the beginning of fiscal year 2006 than assumed in our budget 

request; and (2) institution of our new compensation program which is market-based 

and more performance-oriented that will result in somewhat lower average salary 

growth than originally expected. 

Question. Given GAO is requesting 50 additional employees, why is there a need for $500,000 in additional costs for contract services? 

Answer. Based on our current assessment of trends in engagements and audits, 

we anticipate an increasing demand for technical expertise. We expect to continue 

to rely on external experts and advisors in disciplines related to our work in physical infrastructure, education, pension simulations, health care, natural resources, 

economic analyses, and survey assistance. Contract services support congressional 

engagements by providing specialized, expert advice and assistance not readily 

available from GAO staff and not necessarily needed on a recurring basis. Contract 

services are also used when certain kinds of expertise are needed within a compressed time-frame to meet congressional needs for particular engagements, 

projects, or audits. For example, we plan to use contract services to provide expertise on a congressional request related to utility tunnels. 

Examples of contract services can range from expert advice on specific issues to 

an analysis of a particular program. We have found that contracts—such as with 

the National Academies—provide an efficient, flexible vehicle to obtain technical assistance and expertise in highly specialized areas. We have used the expertise of the 

National Academies in such areas as: information on trends in printing and dissemination, technologies to protect structures from wildfires, environmental indicators, 

air traffic control modernization and privatization, vulnerabilities of federal lands 

to climate changes, and the Capitol Visitor Center. 

Question. GAO’s budget includes $3.894 million in ‘‘relatively controllable costs’’ 

associated with information technology. Please provide a breakout of the projects 

and activities that comprise the $3.894 million estimate, and the projected impact 

of not funding each of these items. 

Answer. In preparing our fiscal year 2007 budget request, we vigorously scrubbed 

our requirements and limited the items included in our request to selected, targeted 

initiatives that we believe are essential to our ability to maintain our effectiveness 

and productivity. These initiatives primarily relate to (1) enhancing critical business 

systems and (2) addressing security requirements resulting from recent federal guidance. If funding is not directly provided for the requested initiatives, we may need 

to consider delaying these improvements which will only result in increased cost 

over time due to future price level increases. Alternatively, we may need to consider 

our staffing levels in fiscal year 2007 in order to ensure that we could pursue these 

initiatives. The following table provides additional information on the requested in-
262 

creases for Information Technology activities and the impact of not funding these 

items. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASES REQUESTED FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Activity Amount 

Replace GAO’s financial management system ........................................................................................................ 1,400 

GAO’s financial management system needs to be replaced now and is a priority effort over the next 2 

years. Our financial management system is antiquated, is no longer supported by the vendor, fails to 

meet current business system requirements, and is in danger of failing. If the system is not replaced expeditiously, we run the risk of being unable to (1) effectively operate our financial management system, 

(2) produce auditable financial statements, and (3) meet internal control standards without extensive 

manual intervention and support. 

In fiscal year 2006, we plan to select a government cross-service provider and begin a phased implementation in fiscal year 2007. The replacement financial management system will provide integrated 

budgeting, purchasing, and accounting functionality while enhancing the information available to program 

managers, and allow us to meet our goal of being a model agency. 

Enhance the Engagement Management and Job Information Systems .................................................................. 425 

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we plan to continue the redesign of the Engagement Management System and Job Information Systems. With the integration of existing systems such as the Congressional 

Contact System and Staffing Information System into the Engagement Management System, the new system will provide a more robust management tool which will allow one information source and access 

point for planning, staffing, and management of GAO’s evaluation work. Currently, GAO maintains multiple 

systems with similar data, requiring managers to enter redundant data into multiple databases, reconcile 

information to ensure its accuracy, and access multiple systems to obtain information needed to manage 

and conduct congressional engagements. 

Improve IT security and systems ............................................................................................................................. 2,069 

In fiscal year 2006, GAO will relocate its alternate computing facility for disaster recovery and continuity of operations from a commercial site to one that is shared with other legislative branch agencies. 

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we will continue to implement security features to identify and stop potential hackers and improve the overall security of the agency’s information and technology assets. 

In fiscal year 2007, we will initiate the transition to Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) to comply with 

federal guidance and policy to implement IPv6 by fiscal year 2008. This will require the upgrade of numerous infrastructure devices and GAO applications to ensure interoperability and IT security. 

With the completion of installing SIPRNet—DOD’s Internet for sharing data classified up to the secret 

level—in the field offices, our efforts will shift to installing access to DOD’s Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network system, NIPRNet, in fiscal year 2007. Electronic access to DOD’s systems allows 

staff to obtain information needed to complete engagements without incurring travel costs. 

In addition, we will build upon our design of the Hurricane Central Portal to create portals that will 

provide a single access point to enterprise information resources, tools, and common applications within 

the GAO network. These portals will facilitate timely and effective staff research and access to data needed to respond to congressional inquiries. The initial focus will be a portal for the core business and analyst communities. 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,894 

Question. GAO’s budget proposes $3.819 million in ‘‘relatively controllable costs’’ 

associated with building management. Please provide a breakout of this requested 

increase, and the impact of not funding these items. 

Answer. In preparing our fiscal year 2007 budget request, we vigorously scrubbed 

our requirements and limited the items included in our request to selected, targeted 

initiatives that we believe are essential to our ability to maintain our effectiveness 

and productivity. These initiatives primarily relate to (1) cyclical maintenance identified in our 2005 GAO Building Condition Assessment Report, and (2) security requirements resulting from recent federal guidance. If funding is not directly provided for the requested initiatives, we may need to consider delaying these improvements which will only result in increased cost over time due to future price level 

increases. Alternatively, we may need to consider our staffing levels in fiscal year 

2007 in order to ensure that we could pursue these initiatives. The following table 

provides additional information on the requested increases for Building Management activities and the impact of not funding these items. 
263 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASE REQUESTED FOR BUILDING MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Activity Amount 

GAO Building Maintenance and Repair ................................................................................................................... 922 

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we plan to undertake several maintenance and repair projects identified 

in our 2005 Building Condition Assessment report. In fiscal year 2007, we plan to continue upgrades to 

the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, replace the cooling towers, upgrade the handicapped lift, and perform cyclical maintenance on the building elevators. In order to ensure the safety of 

GAO staff, we could not defer critical elements, such as elevator upgrades. 

Increase Security For Incoming Mail And Packages ............................................................................................... 400 

We plan to relocate and consolidate our mail and package receiving facilities to help ensure the safety 

and security of GAO staff and assets in the event of the receipt of hazardous materials. 

Upgrade Contract Security Force ............................................................................................................................. 610 

In fiscal year 2005, we restructured the contract for the security force to upgrade the qualifications for 

the security force to Special Police Officers, gradually replacing GSA guards. The restructuring will help 

ensure a more professional, secure environment. In fiscal year 2006, we completed the restructuring of 

the security force and have attained full staffing with special police officers. The requested increase represents the annualized cost of making the transition from GSA guards to special police officers. If the requested funding is not available, we would be required to reduce the number of officers that we could 

support and determine other ways to help mitigate the potential risks to GAO staff and assets. 

Integrated Electronic Security System (IESS) .......................................................................................................... 1,225 

We plan to implement an IESS at GAO headquarters in fiscal year 2006 and expand the system to the 

field offices in fiscal year 2007. The IESS will allow GAO to integrate headquarters and field office access 

control, surveillance, and alarm systems and provide the ability to monitor field activity from a console in 

the headquarters Command Control Center. We anticipate some savings will result from integrating the 

field offices and headquarters control systems and less reliance on the Federal Protective Service (FPS) in 

the field. The integrated system will allow GAO to comply with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 

(HSPD 12) which sets forth requirements for using government-issued identification, Smart Cards, to permit access to federal agencies. 

Security Investigations ............................................................................................................................................. 197 

In fiscal year 2006, we will start conducting higher-level investigations on contractors and interns to 

meet the requirements of HSPD 12 for the issuance of government identification to allow access to federal 

facilities. In addition, in fiscal year 2007, a significant number of staff are due for cyclical updates of 

their security clearance which is required to gain access to needed information and facilities. 

Upgrade Tax Rooms ................................................................................................................................................. 225 

We plan to assess secure space in the field offices and implement changes needed to comply with Internal Revenue Service guidelines for storing tax returns and other sensitive information. 

Design For Library & 7th Floor ................................................................................................................................ 240 

We plan to redesign the physical layout of our library facility to (1) reconfigure space to improve work 

collaboration as we reduce our physical collection and migrate to greater use of electronic resources, and 

(2) design additional workspace to accommodate displaced GAO staff when the GAO Building is used as 

an alternate facility for congressional staff. 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,819 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Question. How many GAO staff did not perform at a satisfactory level (meets expectations or better rating) in 2005 and were thus ineligible for purchase power protection? 

Answer. Only 8 staff did not perform at a meets expectation level or better and 

therefore did not receive an annual adjustment. In addition, 19 staff did not meet 

the relative performance requirements for satisfactory performance and therefore 

did not receive an annual adjustment. 

Question. What happened to these individuals? 

Answer. The 8 employees whose performance was not at a meets expectations 

level or better did not receive the annual adjustment or any other salary increases 

or performance bonuses. The remaining 19 employees did not receive the annual adjustment, but were assessed for performance based compensation and were eligible 

to receive a performance bonus. 

Question. Were the affected employees aware of the reasons for being denied their 

COLA’s? 

Answer. Yes. GAO has implemented a market-based and performance-oriented 

compensation system and does not provide an across-the-board increase to all em-
264 

ployees regardless of their performance, roles and responsibilities or salary in relation to the market. Our annual adjustment reflects changes in the cost of labor and 

is one component of an employee’s compensation. As noted above, some employees 

were ineligible for this adjustment due to their performance. 

Employees who didn’t receive adjustments due to ‘‘below expectations’’ ratings 

were made aware that their appraisals made them ineligible for salary adjustments 

or performance bonuses. The 19 employees who didn’t receive annual adjustments 

due to the relative performance criteria were considered for performance based compensation. All staff can access a performance-based compensation report from a webbased system This report contains information about employees’ ratings, base salary 

increases and/or performance bonuses, but does not provide a specific explanation 

of why the amount may be a bonus rather than a base salary adjustment. Various 

communications were undertaken to inform staff as to the nature and basis for 2006 

salary adjustments—including who was or was not eligible for the annual adjustment component. These included a special Comptroller General televised chat for 

which the briefing materials were posted for all staff. A GAO order covering the annual adjustment and performance-based compensation process was issued for notice 

and comment. Lastly, a PBC guide with calculation examples was posted on the 

GAO intranet. Human Capital Office staff also provided specific explanations of individual salary adjustments to employees upon request. 

Question. What affect has the GAO Human Capital Reform Act had on the morale 

of the employees in your agency? 

Answer. The Human Capital Reform Act (HC II) was passed in July 2004 and 

provided GAO with several flexibilities including permanent authority for the Comptroller General to offer voluntary early retirement, voluntary separation incentive 

payments, enhanced annual leave for key employees, flexible relocation benefits and 

an executive exchange program. In addition, the act authorized the Comptroller 

General to establish revised pay retention regulations and to determine the annual 

salary adjustment for GAO staff rather than increasing salaries by the percentage 

authorized for the General Schedule. The Comptroller General’s authority to establish the amount of the annual adjustment was effective for increases effective on or 

after October 1, 2005. Therefore, January 2006 represented the first exercise of this 

authority. 

GAO conducts an annual employee feedback survey to give staff an opportunity 

to provide input on various issues relating to their employment at GAO. The results 

from the 2005 survey which was the first conducted since the passage of Public Law 

108–271 (May and June 2005) show morale improved from the prior year with 71.24 

percent of employees agreeing or strongly agreeing that their morale was good. In 

the 2004 survey (July and August of 2004), 68.76 percent of employees agreed or 

strongly agreed that their morale was good. While we can’t attribute changes in morale to this particular legislation or any other single factor, the next survey will be 

conducted in the summer of 2006 after the HC-II pay flexibilities have been exercised. Employees’ responses on the morale question have trended upwards in 2003, 

2004 and 2005 and we will track the 2006 responses when the survey is completed 

in light of the legislation and other changes that have occurred in the agency in the 

past year. 

Question. Why did you not allow for a minimum of a two year transition period 

before implementing the GAO annual pay adjustment provisions? 

Answer. We did. In 2003, as part of our legislative proposal, the Comptroller General laid out plans for a 2-year transition period with increases under the new authority occurring in January 2005 at the earliest. Public Law 108–271 was passed 

in July of 2004 and provided for implementation of the Comptroller General’s annual pay adjustment authority to be effective for any increases effective after October 1, 2005. In January 2005, GAO adjusted employees’ salaries at the same time 

and to the same extent as the General Schedule and January 2006 was the first 

year in which GAO employees received a different annual adjustment than the executive branch. 

Question. Why was the restructuring of GAO senior analysts (Band IIs) carried 

out? 

Answer. As part of our overall human capital transformation efforts, GAO has developed and implemented a modern classification system and a market-based and 

more performance-oriented compensation system. The principles that guided the development of our classification and compensation system are as follows: 

—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 
265 

—Be affordable and sustainable based on current and expected resource levels 

—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 

pay to the market, the Watson Wyatt compensation study validated 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. 

Question. When did the idea of the senior analyst (Band II) restructuring occur 

to you? 

Answer. The issue of how GAO classifies its analyst staff first surfaced in 2000 

during the development of GAO’s competency-based performance system. As part of 

the competency validation effort, some Band II employees reported that certain 

work activities associated with leadership and the development of staff were relevant and important to their responsibilities and other employees indicated that 

they were not relevant. As a result of this bimodal response, these work activities 

were not included in the competency-based performance system, but the reasons for 

the differing response remained a matter of concern. 

In preparation for the development of market-based compensation ranges, it was 

essential to address the issue of Band II roles and responsibilities in order to ensure 

appropriate benchmarking with comparable positions. The results of the marketbased study, which was conducted from July to October of 2004, indicated that the 

different Band II roles should have different pay ranges. In response, the Band II 

restructuring effort was formally announced to staff in May 2005, placement decisions were relayed to individual employees in December 2005 and placements actions effected in January 2006. 

Question. Did you ever mention the possibility of restructuring GAO’s Band IIs 

during the legislative consideration of your human capital proposal? Why not? 

Answer. At the time of the 2003 hearings on human capital II, GAO had not formulated any response to address the issues associated with Band IIs’ roles and responsibilities. We had no idea in 2003 what the results, if any, of our market-based 

compensation study would be. 

Question. What have been the benefits and costs of the Band II restructuring 

process? 

Answer. There are significant benefits to implementing a modern and credible 

classification and compensation system. It supports our continuing efforts to achieve 

our strategic goal of maximizing the agency’s value by becoming a model federal 

agency and a world class professional services organization. The Band II restructuring process was integral to the effort to classify positions to the appropriate levels of responsibility and appropriate market-based salary ranges. While direct cost 

savings were not the impetus for our classification and compensation initiatives, 

over 80 percent of our budget is composed of people-related costs. Our restructuring 

of Band II along with the agency-wide implementation of a market-based and performance-oriented compensation system is a key element in the efficient use of our 

budget. Our previous pay system did not result in equal pay for equal work, was 

financially unsustainable and harmed the agency’s ability to adequately reward 

strong performance. The new system will support our efforts to attract, retain, 

award and motivate top talent. 

However, we recognize that there are also costs associated with any significant 

change and the restructuring was difficult for GAO staff, particularly for long-term 

employees directly affected by the restructuring. Transformation efforts take patience and perseverance to achieve results and we fully expect that employees’ acceptance of these changes will take time. 

Question. How much did GAO ‘‘save’’ by freezing the salaries and denying onehalf of bonuses earned of its staff? 

Answer. The implementation of a market-based compensation system was not designed to save the agency money. In fact, only 47 staff (2.6 percent) assessed for 

performance-based compensation and onboard as of the effective date of these increases received no salary increase or performance bonus this year. Our compensation system is a part of our overall transformation effort whose goal is to establish 

modern, effective, and credible human capital policies in order to ensure that GAO 

is well positioned to serve our congressional clients, maximize our performance, operate the organization within the resources provided in a constrained budget environment, and assure our accountability and service to the nation not only now, but 

also in the future. 
266 

There were 236 Band II Analysts and Specialists who were placed in Band IIA 

and who had salaries in excess of the IIA maximum rate. Under the policy adopted 

to mitigate the impact of the Band II restructuring, these staff whose average salary 

is approximately $109,000 were provided 50 percent of their performance-based 

compensation as a base salary adjustment not to exceed the maximum ‘‘transition’’ 

rate. The transition rate allows all band IIA employees to earn a maximum salary 

equal to the maximum rate that these employees were eligible to earn in 2005 as 

Band IIs, i.e., $118,700 in Washington, D. C. (Note: In some locations, the transition 

maximum was slightly higher than the former Band II maximum due to differing 

locality rates.) If these 236 employees had been provided with the 2.6 percent annual adjustment and the additional 50 percent of their PBC, the added annual cost 

would have been approximately $882,000. 

Question. What is GAO’s policy for paying the relocation expenses of an employee 

who requests a transfer from HQ to a region? 

Answer. GAO does not pay the relocation expenses for employees who request to 

be transferred. As required by Federal Travel Regulation 302.1–1, GAO only offers 

relocation benefits if GAO determines that a transfer is in the interest of the Government. GAO always decides in advance of issuing a job announcement if it will 

offer relocation benefits for a position. If the decision is made to offer relocation benefits, that notation is made in the job announcement. Employees receive relocation 

benefits only if they are chosen for a position which includes relocation benefits in 

the job announcement. Employees who request to transfer from headquarters to a 

field office (or vise versa) are generally allowed to transfer if a position is available, 

however, the agency does not pay their relocation expenses. 

Question. In recent years, GAO, as well as other federal agencies, has invested 

significant resources to upgrade security. Yet, both physical and information security remain a management challenge for the GAO. Please describe why these areas 

continue to be a management challenge. 

Answer. The continuing dynamics of information technology (IT) and security is 

the primary reason for GAO’s management challenge. It is a challenge that is not 

unique to GAO—all federal agencies are dealing with this challenge. Essentially, 

changing security threats, evolving security guidance, and new technologies have 

created an environment in a high state of flux. Our experience has already shown 

that security designs implemented today may not have the same effect of protecting 

our information resources from a newly designed threat, or variant of an existing 

threat, tomorrow. 

The explosion of the Internet, e-commerce and web-based services, along with the 

rapidly expanding presence of wireless and other computing devices, has created 

new challenges for protecting IT systems, privacy information and other agency information assets. In addition, the ease with which technology allows the sharing and 

transfer of information and the portability of cellular devices, tablet computers, and 

PDAs presents ongoing IT security threats—such as viruses, worms, spyware, zero 

day exploits, as well as pharming, phishing and spoofing exploits. Unfortunately, 

these are risks and challenges that are not likely to abate as we look forward and 

as new threats and the potential for new exploits emerge. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has significantly increased its government-wide guidance on IT, providing more and greater detail in 

direct response to legislative direction and the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). FISMA, in turn, has expanded the visibility of each federal 

agency’s IT programs and how secure they are—and caused an increase in the workload and resources needed to comply with government-wide standards and reporting 

requirements. Furthermore, the guidance on implementing and reporting on FISMA 

requirements, as well as the related NIST standards and technology approaches 

continues to evolve. We foresee an increase rather than a decrease in work directly 

supporting these initiatives. 

Also, directives to move towards new technologies, such as IPv6, the next generation Internet protocol, may require a significant restructuring of network architectures and network services. (OMB has mandated that all Federal agencies must be 

using IPv6 by June 2008.) By implementing some of these new technologies, the existing mechanisms implemented to secure the network and information systems 

may need to be discarded and replaced by very different technologies, creating their 

own set of new challenges. Significant changes in technology will require additional 

resources for training and education of staff to meet the challenge. In the case of 

IPv6, it is critical that we develop and implement a sound transition plan to acquire, test and deploy the needed infrastructure equipment to implement IPv6 and 

ensure secure compatibility and interoperability with customers, clients, business 

partners, and service providers. The full implication of IPv6 implementation from 
267 

a security standpoint is just now emerging as industry and organizations/agencies 

gain a greater understanding of the protocol. 

In addition, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 and Office of 

Management and Budget guidance require federal agencies implement a new federal employee identification standard in October 2006. The technical requirements 

to implement these directives are contained in the Federal Information Processing 

Standard (FIPS) 201 guidelines. However, the vendor community is still developing 

and testing products capable of meeting the new standards and requirements. 

Meanwhile, agencies are trying to develop systems and processes to implement the 

new guidelines in a timely fashion in the absence of street-ready products. 

Question. What further investments do you believe are necessary to resolve the 

challenge? 

Answer. Due to the dynamic nature of the security and IT environments, there 

is no silver bullet to resolve the challenge. By following consistent standards and 

best practices, GAO has implemented a defense-in-depth approach using measured 

technical security controls to protect our information systems and information at the 

perimeter, throughout the network, and at the desktop. We still face mounting challenges from changing technologies and multi-vendor solutions. Most environments 

today must still rely on multi-vendor solutions that lack appropriate levels of integration. As the industry matures, we should see more integrated solutions on the 

market. GAO’s future investments will be in support of our desire to consolidate security solutions to a limited number of vendors providing integrated effective solutions and reporting capabilities. These solutions will require both investments in 

technologies and human resources. As GAO moves forward, we will continue to review and update our security tools and approaches to ensure they are the most cost 

effective—and are responsive to ever evolving threats. 

Overall, the increasing and more sophisticated outsider threats, together with additional legislative mandates, presage a steady level of spending, at a minimum, for 

security initiatives to ensure the safeguard of our information resources and compliance with IT security regulations. While the composition of IT security funding will 

likely change to meet new security challenges and government wide requirements, 

we don’t—at this time—envision overall costs decreasing, particularly in light of the 

required move to IPv6. 

GAO has several actions planned or underway in the area of physical security 

which will help improve our security posture, including an integrated access security system which utilizes enhanced Smartcard technology, more stringent background investigations for federal employees and contractors, and a more robust security force of special police officers. However, given the dynamic nature of the nation’s post-September 11 security environment, the challenge is continually evolving. 

Question. What is the status of your effort to install an integrated access security 

system? 

Answer. GAO is working with a solutions provider to work through the details 

of implementing the new technology. During fiscal year 2006, we plan to establish 

an Emergency Operations Center in headquarters as the focal point of our efforts 

to integrate physical security issues. This Center will allow us to monitor and control physical access issues in both headquarters and the field. It will also allow us 

to reduce our reliance in 10 field offices on local Federal Protective Service Staff and 

security forces. We also plan to install turnstiles in the headquarters lobby areas, 

implement Smartcard technology consistent with HSPD 12 and FIPS 201, and implement a visitor and credential management system in headquarters. In fiscal 

years 2007 and 2008, we plan to phase implementation of the access security system 

to the field offices. 

Question. What is the status of your disaster recovery/continuity of operations program? 

Answer. We have put in place a structured plan and process—which we test on 

a periodic basis—for business continuity planning and disaster recovery. We have 

also expanded the capability of our offsite alternative computing facility to ensure 

the recovery and restoration of the IT systems that support the agency’s business 

processes in the event of a disruption. Expanded capabilities include the installation 

of additional file servers, operating systems, storage, back-up, data lines, additional 

remote access licenses and replication technology to synchronize headquarters production data at the alternative computing site. And, we are in the process of moving 

our alternative computing facility from a commercial site to the legislative branch 

facility which will save us about $126,000 annually, while providing the foundation 

for better coordination with other legislative branch entities. The move will occur 

during the summer, 2006. 

Question. Given the current environment of fiscal constraint, it is unlikely the 

Congress will be able to fully fund your budget request. 
268 

a. What impact will this have on your plans for an FTE increase? 

b. How will this affect your ability to meet the Congress’ needs for information? 

Answer. If the Congress is unable to fully funding our budget request, we may 

need to consider delaying some of the requested initiatives which will only result 

in increased cost over time due to future price level increases. Alternatively, we may 

need to consider reducing our planned staffing level in fiscal year 2007 in order to 

ensure that we could pursue the critical initiatives. 

GAO already has a significant supply and demand imbalance with 374 requests 

from the Congress that had not been started as of March 2006. If we are unable 

to increase our staffing, this imbalance will likely continue. We will work with our 

clients on the Hill to determine their priorities for our work, but we will obviously 

not be able to complete all that they have requested. 

Failure to increase our staffing to the requested level would also have an impact 

on the timeliness of our work. While we continue to receive good marks on our service to the Congress, we recognize that we could always improve the timeliness of 

our work. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow, April 27 at 10:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen 116, when we will 

take testimony on the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center construction. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon at 11:32 a.m., Wednesday, April 26, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(269) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:34 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Allard. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

SUSAN ROBFOGEL, CHAIRWOMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

PETER EVELETH, GENERAL COUNSEL 

ALMA CANDELARIA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

BETH HUGHES BROWN, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning. This morning we meet to take testimony from 

three legislative branch agencies: the Office of Compliance, the 

Government Printing Office (GPO), and the Congressional Budget 

Office (CBO). Each agency will appear as a separate panel. I would 

like to welcome all of our witnesses this morning. 

I will hear first from Ms. Tamara Chrisler, Acting Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, accompanied by Ms. Susan 

Robfogel, Chair of the Board of the Office of Compliance, and Pete 

Eveleth as General Counsel. 

The Office of Compliance is requesting $3.4 million, an increase 

of roughly 11 percent over the current budget, and would fund 

three additional employees. The Office’s budget is small in view of 

its responsibilities. I plan to focus most of my questions on the recent revelations concerning the health and safety of the utility tunnels. 

Ms. Chrisler, you may proceed with your testimony. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER

Senator ALLARD. Good morning. 

Ms. CHRISLER. As you mentioned, Chairwoman Robfogel and 

General Counsel Pete Eveleth are with me this morning. Also joining us from the Office of Compliance are Alma Candelaria, Deputy 
270 

Executive Director, and Beth Hughes Brown, our Budget and Finance Officer. 

And let me take a moment on behalf of the Office of Compliance 

and thank you for the opportunity to present to you this morning 

in support of our fiscal 2007 budget request. Chair Robfogel and I 

have submitted for the record written statements, and we appreciate the opportunity to be able to appear before you this morning 

and just highlight some of the items that we believe to be of significant importance in our budget request. 

As you know, in fiscal year 2006, the Office of Compliance submitted to you a zero-based budget request. And we thank the chairman, we thank the subcommittee, for support in that budget request. Because of your support, the Office was able to carry out its 

mission, as well as improve its inspection program, which is of 

great significance. 

Again, in fiscal year 2007, the Office of Compliance is presenting 

a zero-based budget request. And the request is designed to assist 

the Office in ensuring that Congress is a model employer, that the 

legislative branch is a model workplace and a safe working environment. And we are asking your support in supporting our budget 

request so that we can meet those goals. 

Specifically, the Office of Compliance is requesting additional 

funding to further a GAO recommended baseline survey. This survey will allow us to gather data so that we know what the employees and the employers in the legislative community know about 

their rights, their responsibilities, the CAA, as well as the Office 

of Compliance. This information will allow the Office to engage in 

best practices, so that we may measure our performance and so 

that we may focus our efforts on education and outreach to the 

areas that are needed. 

If we focus our efforts and provide assistance and resources 

where the need is, then we will be able to ensure that offices become self-sufficient and enable offices to know where potential violations are themselves, correcting them themselves, to assure a 

safe and healthy working environment. This type of proactive approach will, in the long run, save money. And Senator, it will save 

lives. 

NEW FTE POSITIONS REQUESTED

In addition, the Office of Compliance is requesting additional 

funding for three additional full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, 

one being for a program manager-type position to assist with dedicated service to the Office’s programs and projects, another for the 

accounts payable function of the office, and the other for a management analyst position for the General Counsel’s Office. 

Now significantly, the management analyst position will allow 

the inspectors to go about the business of inspecting, which is 

where their skills are and where their knowledge is. Currently, the 

inspectors inspect facilities. They return to the Office. They input 

data. They record data. They track data, which is taking away from 

where the inspectors are really needed, out in the field, inspecting 

the facilities, monitoring progress and abatement. And we request 

your support in the request for this additional management analyst 

position in the General Counsel’s Office. 
271 

I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that two of the three positions that we are requesting can and will be funded by the Office 

of Compliance through reprogramming of contract money. So although we are requesting three FTE positions, we are in the position to find two of those ourselves. 

Last, but equally as significant as the other items that I have 

mentioned, is the Office’s request for additional funding to inspect 

the Capitol Visitor Center. Because the center is anticipated to be 

completed and opened in the near future, this area will increase 

the Office of Compliance’s responsibility by 0.7 million square feet. 

And because the Office is committed to ensuring that this area, as 

well as the rest of the campus, is safe and healthy and compliant, 

we are requesting your assistance in ensuring that funding allows 

us to do this. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, Mr. Chairman, these are just but a few items in our budget request that I wanted to highlight and bring to your attention 

this morning. I thank you for the opportunity to be able to present 

to you. At this time, I would ask that Chair Robfogel be allowed 

a few minutes to address the subcommittee. And Chair Robfogel, 

General Counsel Eveleth, and myself will remain available to answer any questions that you have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 2007 budget request of the Office of Compliance. 

Board Chair Susan Robfogel is in attendance with me today to express the support of the Board of Directors for the Office’s fiscal year 2007 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. 

We present you again this year a completely zero based budget. We hope that the 

transparency of the zero based format assists 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 approximately $300,000 in additional funding. 

2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. As we begin this agency’s second decade, we can look back at 

much progress, and some rough patches along the way. In February, 2004, the Government Accountability Office issued its major Report ‘‘Office of Compliance: Status 

of Management Control Efforts to Improve Effectiveness’’ GAO–04–400. At approximately the same time, the Office issued its first comprehensive Strategic Plan for 

fiscal years 2004–2006. Both of these documents, and our strides in implementing 

them since 2004, reflect the continuing improvement in the Office’s focus on its core 

missions, and its growing engagement with Congress and legislative branch agencies in collaborative initiatives to enhance our services in the mandated areas of dispute resolution, safety and health enforcement, and education and outreach to our 

regulated community. 

Recently, the Office formally adopted interim performance measures for fiscal 

year 2006, after extensive stakeholder consultations—including with the staff of this 

Committee. Such performance measures represent another step toward the best 

practices in strategic planning and management controls which GAO challenged this 

Office to achieve. We are now also fully engaged in two other strategic initiatives: 

the preparation of our next Strategic Plan, which will guide the Office in fiscal year 

2007 and beyond; and a complete Human Capital Review, which is intended to result in a position classification, pay banding, and possible pay for performance structure for the Office. The Office’s budget request is designed to further the goals of 

our strategic plan. 
272 

As recommended in the GAO Report and reflected in our Strategic Plan, we continue to shift our focus in providing all our services to a more interactive approach, 

enabling regulated employers to achieve greater voluntary compliance with the varied requirements of the Congressional Accountability Act. Legislative branch agencies are faced with many employment, security and safety challenges. Our primary 

mission is to advance safety, health and workplace rights for employees and employers of the legislative branch, as mandated by the Act. We strive toward that goal 

with just 17 full time equivalent (FTE) positions and a current budget of about $3.1 

million. 

As this agency continues to implement the recommendations of the GAO Report, 

and the goals and performance measures of our Strategic Plan, we meet new operational challenges as we become better at what we do. We have carefully prioritized 

our needs, and limited our requested enhancements to meet only those challenges 

which handicap our ability to make broader progress at this point in our development. This morning, I will highlight a few of those requests. 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Office’s day-to-day employment dispute resolution function involves controversies under ten different laws, everything from alleged discrimination to the alleged 

failure to pay required overtime. This dispute resolution activity remains largely unnoticed because of the confidential nature of the 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 the administrative dispute resolution system 

since 1995. The assistance to employing offices and employees provided by this discreet service is perhaps one of the great untold success stories of the past decade 

regarding our contribution to the quality of Congress’s internal operations. 

We are, however, operating with an employment dispute resolution electronic case 

tracking system which was installed at the agency’s inception in 1996. This antiquated system (which is entirely different from the Occupational Safety and Health 

inspection tracking system which this Committee authorized last year) is very hard 

to use, and is no longer compatible with our other operating systems. We have explored whether it would be cost effective to upgrade this system, and have been told 

by experts that it is cheaper to replace it. We are requesting funds to implement 

that recommendation. 

SAFETY AND HEALTH ENFORCEMENT

GAO’s 2004 Report found that ‘‘In contrast to most other CAA requirements, OOC 

is not fully in compliance with the CAA requirement that it ‘conduct periodic inspections of all facilities’ of the agencies covered by the provision.’’ GAO also found a 

‘‘dramatic increase’’ in the number of health and safety inspections requested by employing offices and covered employees, and observed that the Office’s resources 

‘‘have not kept pace with this growth.’’ We thank this Committee for its positive response to GAO’s finding. 

For the current fiscal year, the Office received a significant increase in OSH inspection and enforcement funding to enable us for the first time to substantially 

comply with the Act’s mandate that this agency complete a comprehensive safety 

and health inspection of the entire Capitol Hill campus during each Congress. The 

Office is now well along in this definitive effort to establish the required authoritative and comprehensive OSH base line for all 17 million square feet of covered 

space in the D.C. metro area. General Counsel Eveleth and I are pleased to report 

to you that as of today, the agency is on track to complete that biennial inspection 

by the end of the 109th Congress. Inspection of 100 percent of the campus is one 

of our recently adopted performance measures. Thanks to you, we are better able 

to help the Capitol Hill campus become safer and healthier much faster than otherwise would have been possible. 

As the Office gains experience with this much more intense and efficient inspection regimen, it has become clear that the ‘‘down time’’ our inspectors are currently 

spending back in the office doing administrative tasks can be more cheaply and efficiently performed by a lower cost management analyst, thus freeing up the inspectors to spend more time in the field. We expect that the cost of this FTE will be 

substantially offset by increased efficiencies in the use of inspector time, and we 

plan to reprogram contractor funds to fund the salary of this position. As several 

of our performance measures relate to increased inspection efficiencies, we have requested that you approve an additional position for this purpose. 
273 

The impact of the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center during fiscal year 2007 

will add approximately 0.7 million square feet to our inspection load. Thus, we are 

seeking funding for that added activity. 

EDUCATING OUR CONSTITUENCY

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 program 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). While the Office 

continues to carry out this core mandate of the Act through various educational and 

outreach activities, we have maximized our limited capacity in this area. 

A key obstacle to greater educational effectiveness is our lack of comprehensive 

data regarding how and where we need to focus our efforts. A primary agency performance measurement tool recommended in the GAO Report is the establishment 

of a knowledge baseline regarding the Congressional community’s understanding of 

the Act and of the Office’s role in enforcing it. Such a baseline can best be established through a survey. The survey data will help us better target our education 

efforts and measure results. We are seeking funding for the undertaking of survey 

activities to establish the baseline against which we will measure our success in 

achieving our statutory mandates. 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

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 ‘‘asneeded’’ 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. We are requesting one analyst 

FTE to address our HR and program analyst deficit, and an accounting technician 

FTE to bring our basic accounting and other fiscal responsibilities on staff. The cost 

of these FTE’s will be partially offset by a reduction in contractor expenses. 

CONCLUSION

There are a number of other requests in our budget submission which we commend for your consideration. On behalf of the Board of Directors, the appointees and 

the entire staff of the Office of Compliance, I again thank you for the Committee’s 

support of the efforts of this agency; I recommit to you that we are dedicated to 

using every dollar of taxpayer money carefully and efficiently; and I respectfully request that the Committee respond favorably to the Office’s fiscal year 2007 budget 

request. We will be happy to respond to any questions which you may have. 

APPENDIX—THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE

The Office of Compliance was established to administer and enforce the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1301, et seq. The Congressional Accountability Act applies 12 workplace, employment, and safety laws to Congress and 

other agencies and Instrumentalities of the legislative branch. These laws include: 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Americans with 

Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1970; the Family Medical Leave Act; the 

Fair Labor Standards Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Worker 

Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act; the Employee Polygraph Protection 

Act; and veteran’s employment and reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 

of the U.S. Code. The Act was amended in 1998 to apply the Veterans Employment 

Opportunities Act. 

Currently, the Office has regulatory responsibility for employers in the legislative 

branch employing approximately 30,500 employees. The Office is also charged by 

the Act to make recommendations to Congress as to whether additional employment 

and public services and accommodations laws should be made applicable to the employing offices within the legislative branch. 
274 

Under the direction of the Executive Director, the Office administers a dispute 

resolution system to resolve disputes and complaints arising under the Act, and carries out an education and training program for the regulated community on the 

rights and responsibilities under the Act. The General Counsel has independent investigatory and enforcement authority with respect to certain of the laws administered under the Act and represents the Office in all judicial proceedings under the 

Act. 

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STAFF

The Office has a five-member, non-partisan Board of Directors appointed by the 

Majority and Minority Leaders of both houses of Congress. The Board appoints the 

executive leadership of the agency, acts as an adjudicative body in reviewing appeals by parties aggrieved by decisions of Hearing Officers on complaints filed with 

the Office, and advises Congress on needed changes and amendments to the Act. 

The Board members, who serve five-year terms, come from across the United States, 

and are chosen for their expertise in the laws administered under the Act. In a 

major vote of confidence in the current leadership of the Office, Congress enacted 

legislation in 2004 and in 2005 granting authority to the bipartisan Congressional 

leadership to appoint the current chair and members of the Board to a second 5 year 

term in office, and to the Board to appoint the executive leadership of the Office 

to second five year terms. 

The Office of Compliance currently has 17 full-time employees and pays the parttime Board members on a ‘‘when-actually-employed’’ basis. Our staff performs a 

multiplicity of functions, including: administrative dispute resolution, occupational 

safety and health and disability access enforcement, labor relations regulatory activity, education, Congressional relations, professional support for the Board of Directors, and general administrative and fiscal functions. The Office performs the functions of multiple agencies in and for the Executive Branch, including but not limited 

to, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The Office regularly contracts for the parttime, as-needed services of approximately 30 other individuals as mediators, Hearing Officers, and safety and health investigators. The Office’s senior full-time safety 

and health investigator is on permanent detail from the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

BIENNIAL OSH–ADA INSPECTION

In the fiscal year 2006 budget, Congress provided substantial additional funding 

to permit the Office of the General Counsel to meet the statutory Occupational Safety and Health mandate to examine all legislative branch facilities during the 109th 

Congress biennial cycle of inspections. The total amount of covered premises in the 

metropolitan Washington region is in excess of 17 million square feet. The Office 

is intensely engaged in the implementation of the biennial inspection regimen, and 

continues to carry out the GAO recommendation that the inspection program include interactive and collegial involvement on the part of the affected agencies. 

As part of the revamped inspection regimen, the Office is now utilizing a recently 

installed electronic tracking and report system for OSH inspections and enforcement, and has adopted a widely recognized risk assessment code (RAC) to classify 

all hazards found to exist in the ongoing inspections. 

MORE CONSULTATION AND COLLEGIALITY

GAO also recommended that ‘‘OOC should establish congressional and agency 

protocols... between the Congress, legislative branch agencies, and OOC on what 

can be expected as OOC carries out its work.’’ (GAO Report, Introduction) The Office 

of Compliance continues to develop new approaches to OSH and other regulatory 

activities which involve greater consultation, coordination, and transparency in dispute resolution, and in investigatory and enforcement activity. This effort is time 

intensive and requires partnerships with employing offices and employees and a 

concomitant educational and training initiative to improve management and employee understanding of best practices. These activities are focused on fostering 

more cooperative efforts at achieving compliance with standards but they do not negate the statutory mandate to enforce the law. 

STRAINS ON AGENCY RESOURCES

In last year’s budget request, this Office highlighted the drastic under-resourcing 

of the agency’s OSH inspection and enforcement responsibility. We thank the Com-
275 

mittee for its leadership in significantly improving the level of resources we are able 

to employ in meeting the OSH challenge. 

In this budget, the problems are less evident to outside stakeholders, but no less 

urgent with regard to the Office’s ability to carry out its mission. We are requesting 

three FTE’s to address chronic major shortfalls in our administrative support capabilities in IT and equipment maintenance, fiscal controls; and to address the emerging need for more administrative support for the much larger OSH inspection activities. The Office of Compliance continues to operate with three fewer FTE’s than it 

was provided when the agency began operations in 1996. However, our responsibilities and statutory missions have not diminished. We respectfully submit that restoration of three FTE’s will greatly assist the Office in continuing to address the 

recommendations of the 2004 GAO Report, and better serving our customer community. 

We are also asking for funds to better focus our education and outreach efforts, 

and a number of other inexpensive enhancements to many of our program efforts 

which nevertheless provide significant added value to the quality of workplace life 

on Capitol Hill. 

Senator ALLARD. Ms. Robfogel. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SUSAN ROBFOGEL

Ms. ROBFOGEL. I will emphasize only one point because I know 

there are, as you say, there are many questions that you have with 

respect to some of the safety violations that have been discussed 

so extensively in the last few weeks. 

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the support 

that you provided to the Office during the 2006 year. As a result 

of the increased funding that we received last year, the Office has 

been able to engage in a much rigorous inspection of the entire congressional campus. And although we are only 63 percent completed 

with respect to our inspection with the 109th Congress, we have already identified 10,000 safety violations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

What our emphasis needs to be as we go forward is to be sure 

that we have the funding to deal with abatement and enforcement 

and to help the various constituents who are part of the congressional campus to keep their building safe, and to learn how to recognize safety violations when they see them. 

We want to keep doing the job that we are trying to do, to keep 

people who work on the Hill safe and to keep visitors who come to 

the Hill safe. You have gone a long ways toward helping us do our 

job. We need a little bit more support going forward. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN ROBFOGEL

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Susan 

Robfogel. As Chair of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance, I am honored to be here today to join Tamara Chrisler in testifying on the Office’s fiscal year 

2007 budget request. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation and 

that of the rest of the Board for the increased funding appropriated to the Office 

of Compliance in fiscal year 2006 for purposes of completing a comprehensive safety 

and health biennial inspection. I can assure you that the Office is on track with this 

vital effort. 

Mr. Chairman, the Board would like to commend the work of the entire staff in 

achieving so many goals in the past few years. We now have a Strategic Plan with 

a performance line of sight to individual work plans; we have established or are developing protocols to enable us better to partner with the agencies for which we 

have employment law and safety and health jurisdiction; and we have worked with 
276 

this Committee, and GAO to improve and systematize our business practices in 

budget, performance measures, and strategic planning. 

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 all of the budget requests, we wish to underscore the need which the agency has to increase its FTE 

complement to 20. 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. 

We are available to address any questions. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony. 

I would like to follow up on your request. You have requested an 

11-percent increase over the current year. You gave us some brief 

explanation. I would like to go over and make sure I understand 

that. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Those increases are in the area of three additional full-time employees. It looks to be pretty much on the management side, a program manager, an accounts payable technician, 

and then a management analyst. Is that correct? 

Ms. CHRISLER. That is correct, for the General Counsel’s Office. 

Senator ALLARD. And what is your priority on those? Did you 

give those in the way of priority to us? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you. The management analyst position is 

a significant position. And that is a very significant position. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Ms. CHRISLER. The accounts payable position, what we have now, 

Senator, is a very small human resource, as well as budget staff, 

extremely small. And we are contracting some of those services out 

now, which are core functions of our office. And to, frankly, be more 

efficient and more effective in managing our office, that accounts 

payable position is significant, as well. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Ms. CHRISLER. The program manager-type position for our office 

would be split between managing programs, managing projects, as 

well as carrying out some of the human resource functions in the 

Office, as well. So although all three positions are desperately 

needed by the Office, we are able to fund two of them. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I know it is difficult to set priorities, and 

that is a tough question. I respect and thank you for your straightforward response. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Now the Capitol Visitor Center, that is another 

reason for that increase? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes, it is, Senator. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Now, are there any other factors that I 

did not pick up on in your testimony or maybe you did not have 

in your testimony that is contributing to the 11-percent increase 

that you are requesting? 

Ms. CHRISLER. There are a number of items that we are requesting assistance for. The main ones are for the full-time equivalent 

positions, the baseline survey, the case tracking. What is signifi-
277 

cant and of main importance for us is to be able to maintain our 

progress that we have made so far. The Office wants to be able to 

sustain itself. And the Office is requesting assistance to be able to 

grow with the surrounding circumstances. 

There are many circumstances that are getting greater attention 

and requiring greater responsibility and greater inspection and 

management by our Office. And we are asking your support in general for us to be able to move with and maintain the progress that 

we have made and also continue to make progress, because as the 

campus moves and grows and as incidents and issues and circumstances come to the attention of the Office, we want to be in 

the position to provide the services and resources that are necessary. 

BIENNIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INSPECTIONS

Senator ALLARD. How would you evaluate your biennial health 

and safety inspection of the Capitol, including the House and Senate facilities? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The progress on that is going very well. As Chair 

Robfogel mentioned, we are 63 percent into that process. And along 

with me this morning is General Counsel Eveleth, who maintains 

overall management of that program. And I would like to defer to 

him to add additional comments to that question. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have made significant 

progress over the past years as a result of the additional funding 

that we received for fiscal year 2006. In our 108th Congress biennial inspection, we were only able to cover 25 percent of the square 

footage, that is, of the approximately 16 million-plus square footage. There will be an additional 700,000 once the visitor center 

comes online. But we were only able to do 25 percent in the last 

biennial. 

At this point, as has been said, we have covered 63 percent. And 

we anticipate completing the biennial inspection for the 109th Congress by September of this year. So that is a big step forward. 

Senator ALLARD. It is. 

Mr. EVELETH. As a result of that, we have identified, as was indicated, something like 10,000 violations, as opposed to our last inspection, where we discovered 2,600 violations. That number, in 

turn exceeded the biennial inspection for the 107th Congress where 

we identified something like 360 violations. That does not mean it 

is because things have gotten worse. It is just that we are doing 

a much more thorough baseline inspection. 

Senator ALLARD. And under those violations, have you tried to 

break them down into categories? 

FINDINGS BY RISK ASSESSMENT CODE

Mr. EVELETH. I can tell you, I can break it down. We have a system which we call a RAC system. That is a risk assessment code 

system. This is common in industry, and in other departments. 

And ours is based on the Department of Defense’s risk assessment 

code system. 

It is a combination of rating each hazard during the inspection 

according to the risk of injury or illness or potential of death. It de-
278 

pends upon a combination of the probability that an employee 

could be hurt and the severity of the illness. The RAC’s are based 

on that. And the most serious RAC rating would be a risk one, and 

that goes to a risk five, which is de minimis. 

Now we ourselves do not count risks that are de minimis. We 

just do RAC one through four. And so I can tell you—— 

Senator ALLARD. The 10,000 only includes one through four. It 

does not include five? 

Mr. EVELETH. No. We do not even record de minimis ones. 

Senator ALLARD. So the 10,000 would get you the RAC one, two, 

three, and four. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. And of the RAC’s, there are 20—this is as 

of today or last week—we discovered 20 RAC ones—those are the 

most serious—1,655 RAC two’s; 7,681 RAC three’s; and 759 RAC 

four’s. 

Senator ALLARD. What would be an example of a RAC four? 

Mr. EVELETH. A RAC four would be such things as—let us see. 

I have some examples of that. There may be some electrical cord 

hazards, some ladder hazards, broken ladder, some fall protection 

hazards. There might be a problem with fire extinguishers, that 

they are not currently inspected. There might be an issue about 

storage shelving hazards, overloaded shelves or something. 

Senator ALLARD. I have a pretty good feel where that is. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. And a RAC one example would be? 

Mr. EVELETH. Well, a RAC one would be—as you know, the tunnels would be an example of that, where there would be falling concrete, where there is asbestos, and things of that nature. A lot of 

electrical issues would also be a RAC one—where a worker could 

be exposed to an electrical hazard. 

Senator ALLARD. Bare wires or something like that. 

Mr. EVELETH. Bare wires and so forth. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. And when we do the RAC’s, it is not a one-sizefits-all kind of RAC. In other words, an electrical hazard in one situation might be a RAC one and another might be a RAC four, depending on the circumstances. For example, if there were a wet 

floor or something, that would heighten the risk, if someone were 

to be shocked. 

FIRST OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT

Senator ALLARD. Now I would like to proceed to one of the RAC 

ones, the one that has the most publicity at this point in time. That 

is the complaint that you filed with the Architect of the Capitol regarding a condition of the Capitol complex utility tunnels. Now this 

is the first time that OOC has filed a complaint under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. You have filed other complaints, but 

this is the first one under that act. 

Mr. EVELETH. That is correct. 

Senator ALLARD. Why did the OOC believe it necessary to file a 

complaint? 

Mr. EVELETH. Well, my predecessor, as you know, issued a citation back in the year 2000. And when I came on board in 2003, my 
279 

intent was to determine which were the most hazardous areas. And 

the first areas that we began to look at were areas that had not 

been inspected at all in the past. And I wanted to be sure what was 

going on there. 

And in 2005, we began, when we had additional resources that 

we did not have before, we began our inspection of the Capitol 

Power Plant tunnels and the Capitol Power Plant itself, because 

that was an area where a citation had been issued previously. And 

what we discovered in the course of that, that while some work had 

been done, in effect very little work had been done. That is to say, 

in 2000 a contractor that had been inspecting the tunnels under 

the engagement of the Architect of the Capitol—that contractor 

identified areas within the tunnels that needed to be fixed within 

1 year, immediate attention, as well as other ones that had to be 

done within 5 years. 

What we discovered in our inspection was—and they were also 

required to monitor the progress of those things, because they continued to deteriorate. Those tunnels are very hot. They go up to 

130 degrees, some of the tunnels, and they are also damp. And that 

combination causes rust. And the rust in the rebar that is under 

the cement, it expands as a result of rusting. And whole sections 

can and have delaminated. That is, they have fallen down. And 

smaller areas have spalled. So that is a very serious situation. And 

the contractor said, ‘‘You need to do these things within a certain 

period of time.’’ 

Senator ALLARD. Is that what the original contractor said in 

2000? 

Mr. EVELETH. That is what the original contractor said, right, 

back in 2000. Our citation back in 2000 basically tracked what that 

contractor had found and said to fix these issues. Continue to monitor, fix the safety communication system so that people within the 

tunnels can notify the people outside the tunnels, if they have to 

get out, if there is an emergency, and also to assure that there 

were sufficient number of egress points so they could be rescued in 

the event of a collapse or injury or what have you. 

And when we went through the tunnels in June 2005, we discovered that the communications system, although it had initially 

been improved, was not working properly. And not all the areas 

were covered by the communications system. 

A number of the egress points had been welded shut during past 

years. And there were not—there was an insufficient number of 

egress points. And finally, they had not completed the repairs or 

made any attempt to do the repairs in most of the areas that had 

been identified by the contractor. 

We met with the Architect of the Capitol, as we do monthly, that 

is to say, representatives of the Architect of the Capitol and described the problem. They gave us a tentative mitigation plan, 

which we examined. And we reached the conclusion—and I told the 

Architect about this as well—we reached the conclusion that it was 

insufficient. And it was insufficient in at least two respects. 

In one respect, it was insufficient because insufficient monies 

were going to be reprogrammed or were going to be asked for in 

this fiscal year. I think less than $4 million was being requested. 

Whereas the contractor back in 2000 had said it will be at least 
280 

$13 million in order to just do the concrete, to prevent the spalling 

of the concrete and things like that. So we knew that an insufficient amount was being requested. And therefore, it would not be 

possible to do all the repairs within short order. 

And the other aspect of it that was of most concern to us was 

that there were no intermediate measures that were being undertaken or proposed by the Architect until the full repairs could be 

made. And there was no suggestion about putting in netting or any 

other kinds of things that might be able to be done to protect the 

workers. 

And because of that, we decided that it was necessary to file a 

complaint. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. I am sorry if that is an overlong answer. 

Senator ALLARD. No, we needed that detail. Thank you. 

The question, then, is what kind of follow up do you have? This 

has gone on for 6 years now. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, 51⁄2 years. I have been an inspector myself, and I always would say I will be back in 1 month and see how 

you are doing. Why was there not that kind of follow up? 

Mr. EVELETH. I cannot answer that entirely, because I was not 

on duty at that time. But what I can tell you is that under the citation, the Architect was supposed to have completed the repairs during the following fiscal year. 

Senator ALLARD. So we were just taking the word of the Architect that the work had been done? 

Mr. EVELETH. No, no, sir, no. I am saying that they had a couple 

of years in order to do the work. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. EVELETH. And then we would go back and see whether they 

had done the work. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. EVELETH. There was not a continuing reporting process. 

That is number one. 

Two, we did not have the resources, frankly, to do all the inspections and to follow up on all these things until—as I say, when I 

got on duty, my primary interest was to look at those violations 

and citations that looked the most serious and those that had not 

been inspected at all. And so I turned to that. 

Now should we have done more? Absolutely we should have done 

more. And now we are in a position to do more. And that is what 

our whole intention is to do by this RACS system, is to be able to 

identify those violations that are the most serious in terms of likelihood of occurrence and likelihood of injury to people. And that is 

going to be our emphasis. 

Senator ALLARD. And do you have a system of tracking these violations now within the Office of Compliance? 

Mr. EVELETH. We do now. 

Senator ALLARD. When did you put that into effect? 

Mr. EVELETH. Pardon me? 

Senator ALLARD. When did you put that into effect? 

Mr. EVELETH. We asked for that, I believe it was, for our fiscal 

year 2005 budget. And then we have been in the process ever since 
281 

of loading into that tracking system not only our current inspections—that is, when the inspectors go out, they come back to the 

Office, they load it into our system, and it says exactly where the 

violation is, the RAC number, what code section is being violated, 

and when the employing office or the Architect will abate it. And 

then we analyze that data, and we will go back as soon as we have 

the information from them and tell them, yes, we think that is appropriate or no, you have to speed that process up. 

But thank goodness for that appropriation, because when you are 

talking about 10,000 violations, plus what we have found in earlier 

years, it is impossible to keep track of it without some kind of a 

solid database. 

Senator ALLARD. You do. And you have to prioritize. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. As an inspector, if I found a serious violation, 

I would say I will be back in 2 weeks or I will be back in 30 

days—— 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. To follow up on things. If it was 

less serious, I would say, well, I will pick it up in a couple of 

months and see how you are doing. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. So it seems to me that if it is a RAC one, it 

needs to be followed up a little more closely than if it is some other 

less serious violation. 

Mr. EVELETH. Absolutely. And what we do, when our inspectors 

go in and they see a RAC one situation, they immediately issue a 

notice of serious deficiency and tell them to fix it. And we follow 

up on all those RAC ones right away. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. Now obviously if you have a situation like the tunnels, that is not something that can be fixed like that. 

Senator ALLARD. No. I understand that. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. We are doing our best to respond to that, by the 

way, if you noticed. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. And we greatly appreciate that. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. EVELETH. That is critical. 

COMPLAINT AGAINST ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL ABOUT THE

TUNNELS

Senator ALLARD. Apparently your office is involved in a legal proceeding to address the complaint with the Architect of the Capitol, 

I understand. 

Mr. EVELETH. That is correct. 

Senator ALLARD. What is the status of that process? And how do 

you expect it will conclude? 

Mr. EVELETH. Well, we are now in the process of—we have submitted position papers, both sides. The hearing officer has been appointed. We will be setting out our respective witnesses and all the 

pretrial stuff that goes with that. 

Senator ALLARD. This is a hearing procedure—— 

Mr. EVELETH. That is correct. 
282 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Using a hearing officer, not a fullblown court case. Is that right? 

Mr. EVELETH. Well, the process is this: A hearing officer is appointed by the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance. A 

full litigation proceeds with discovery and so forth. There is then 

a hearing before a hearing officer, who issues a report. That report 

then may be appealed. The results of his order in this case will be 

appealed to the board of directors of the Office of Compliance. And 

then the dissatisfied party may go to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit. So it is an administrative proceeding before the Office of Compliance, but subject to appeal to 

the court. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL PLAN TO REMEDY TUNNEL ISSUES

Senator ALLARD. Now, has the Office of Compliance had an opportunity to review the Architect’s plan that was submitted on 

April 10, to both Senator Durbin and myself to remedy the tunnel 

problems? 

Mr. EVELETH. There was an excerpt given to us, I believe, last 

week. And later last week, we asked the Architect to provide that 

to us. 

Senator ALLARD. That is, almost 30 days after we received it, it 

was given to you? 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. And we just received it this morning. So I 

have not had a chance to look at it yet. But we were asked by the 

Architect’s Office to respond to that. But as I said, we just got it 

this morning. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I am surprised that he did not allow you 

to review that before he submitted it to the subcommittee. 

Mr. EVELETH. Well, I believe the position of the Architect’s counsel was that because we were in litigation, they were not going to 

share that information with us, and that was really something that 

should be governed by the discovery under the proceedings that are 

now before the hearing officer. 

Senator ALLARD. When did the litigation get filed? 

Mr. EVELETH. February 28. 

Senator ALLARD. The 28th. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. So their immediate response is not to talk to 

you after that litigation is filed? 

Mr. EVELETH. Well, I think there could be more communication, 

yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. So you would have preferred that they 

communicated with you at least before they submitted the plan to 

us. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. As a consequence, we do not know how you 

really feel about that evaluation because you just got it yesterday. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. Today. 

Senator ALLARD. Today? 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. This morning. That is correct. 

Senator ALLARD. You did not have a chance to review it for this 

testimony. 

Mr. EVELETH. No, I did not. 
283 

Senator ALLARD. I would like to get your evaluation on that as 

soon as possible. As soon as you do get a chance to evaluate it, 

would you send it to the subcommittee as part of your response for 

this hearing? 

Mr. EVELETH. Yes, indeed. 

[The information follows:] 

As was discussed at the hearing, that report was not provided to the Office of the 

General Counsel (OGC) until the morning of the hearing. We are attempting to provide overall comments to the abatement plan itself, but also to the specific questions 

you posed. This is based on the assessment of the members of our staff and our contract safety consultants as well as a recent summary briefing by the staff of the Architect of the Capitol on May 11, 2006, respecting the AOC plan. 

The Architect’s plan raises complex technical questions that this office will need 

to address with respect to the adequacy of the measures proposed to be undertaken, 

both in the short and long term, to correct the hazardous conditions. This will require the services of structural engineering firms and other experts in order to make 

these assessments. Since this office does not presently have on hand the necessary 

technical expertise to evaluate the AOC plan, it is in the process of interviewing experts for these purposes. Accordingly, this should be considered to be a preliminary 

report. With this caveat, however, the OOC is fully supportive of the emergency supplemental budgetary support to fund the AOC plan. 

We met with representatives from the AOC’s safety, engineering, and tunnels 

staffs on May 11, 2006, to provide further explanation of the report. The AOC’s report (on page 42) provides immediate and mid-term estimates of costs exceeding 

$117 million. While that estimate provides a breakdown of costs for each tunnel for 

fiscal year 2006, 2007, and 2008, it does not provide a similar breakdown for each 

program area (i.e., asbestos abatement, communications upgrade, egress improvements, etc.). At the meeting with the AOC officials, we became aware that additional financial sheets existed that would provide this information. The AOC provided those figures to the OGC on May 16, 2006, and they are currently being reviewed by this office. 

The Architect’s abatement plan provides a plan of action, not only for the conditions identified in the Complaint, dated February 28, 2006 (falling concrete, emergency communications, and emergency egress), but also for those conditions identified in Citations 60 and 61 (asbestos and heat stress). 

Comments on the Abatement Plan 

At our meeting with the AOC on May 11, 2006, Susan Adams, Director, Safety, 

Fire and Environmental Programs for the AOC, noted that the abatement plan was 

developed by the AOC in a 10-day period immediately following their March hearings before the Appropriations Subcommittee and in response to specific requests 

from Senators Durbin and Mikulski. This fact raises two concerns. First, the Report 

indicates that even though the Architect was aware of the serious conditions in the 

tunnels as a result of Citation 24 issued in CY 2000 and the repeated inquiries from 

OOC inspectors on behalf of the tunnels workers during the 108th inspections, the 

original fiscal year 2007 budget request from the AOC identified only $1.8 million 

to be reprogrammed in fiscal year 2006 and $1.75 million in fiscal year 2007 for the 

correction of the hazards and tunnel maintenance. That is a very small percentage 

of the amount now identified as necessary to correct these significant hazards. Second, we are concerned about the accuracy of both the monetary and time allocations 

assessed for the individual elements of the abatement plan. While we are certain 

that the AOC made every reasonable and good faith efforts to prepare reasonable 

estimates, past experience would indicate that estimates developed under such conditions may not necessarily prove to be accurate either in terms of the length of 

time or the amount of resources it will take to effectively abate the hazards, especially since the contracted for condition assessments have not been completed, and 

the full extent of remedial measures necessarily have not been determined. Therefore, both interim and long-term measures proposed by the AOC plan may be inadequate to fully protect the tunnel workers, and may consequently place them at further risk. 

In addition, we believe that parts of the AOC’s abatement plan do not provide 

adequate interim protective measures. For example, one interim measure involves 

the Construction Management Division of the AOC (now Construction Division) conducting visual inspections in order to identify those areas where the risk of falling 

concrete is most severe. Prior consultant reports indicate that visual inspections 

may not adequately identify all areas of potential delamination and spalling. The 
284 

CD is tasked with removing concrete sections at risk of falling. This is a cumbersome and time consuming process. Workers must erect structures to protect the 

piping system from falling concrete pieces, and the small, confined spaces make access to the spalling concrete difficult. Therefore, it is unlikely that these interim 

measures can be completed by the end of the calendar year as estimated by the 

AOC. The longer this process takes, of course, the longer tunnel workers and others 

will be exposed to this serious hazard. Additional information should be sought from 

the AOC to ascertain whether sufficient resources are being dedicated to this task. 

Under the AOC plan, hazards in the Y tunnel will be among the last to be permanently fixed. The study which will advise whether the Y tunnel should be replaced 

or repaired is scheduled to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2006. However, 

if the recommendation is made to replace the tunnel, then another study will be required to determine if other options, such as alternative sources of power for the 

buildings serviced by the Y tunnel, are available. That study is not anticipated to 

be completed until at least the middle of 2007. Again, because of the lack of sufficient egress points, the high heat levels, and the advanced state of deterioration in 

this tunnel, we are concerned about the adequacy of interim measures to protect 

workers using this tunnel. 

In the abatement plan, the AOC requests approximately $14 million for complete 

asbestos removal in the tunnels and the installation of new insulation. The OOC 

endorses this approach in theory. GAO accurately testified to the Appropriations 

Subcommittee on April 27, 2006, that the industry standard calls to leave asbestos 

in place, unless it is going to be subject to further damage, or access is needed for 

maintenance. During that hearing, however, neither GAO nor the AOC discussed 

a principal justification for complete removal of asbestos in additional areas of the 

tunnels where the steam pipes generate excessive heat levels that adversely affects 

the integrity of the tunnels and the health and safety of tunnel workers. These adverse heat conditions only serve to exacerbate the problems already present causing 

further deterioration and spalling of the concrete. We are informed by the AOC that 

by replacing the current asbestos coverings with other types of insulation, the temperatures in tunnels could be significantly reduced. Therefore. the hybrid approach 

of removing only damaged or friable asbestos and the asbestos found in the excessively hot areas, therefore, may not be effective from either an abatement or cost 

effectiveness standpoint. Accordingly, we believe that before a decision is made with 

respect to adopting the hybrid approach this issue should be carefully studied. 

Of particular concern is the fact that the abatement plan provides no mechanism 

for the sharing of information with the Office of Compliance which is responsible 

for assuring that the violations set forth in the underlying citations are fully abated. 

The General Counsel is responsible for monitoring abatement. In order to provide 

appropriate oversight and evaluation of the effectiveness and progress of the abatement measures, the AOC must make continuously available full access to the information produced by the AOC and its contractors. This is an area where this office 

can be of assistance in providing independent analyses and assessments for the Subcommittee. 

Comments to Specific Questions 

We were asked to address those priorities that are most urgent and those that 

could be dealt with at a later time. 

While all of the conditions addressed in our Complaint and Citations 60 and 61 

are significant, in our judgment the highest priority must be given to those hazards 

that create the most serious and imminent risk of harm. First and foremost are 

those measures that protect the tunnel workers from falling concrete. Second, is protection from friable asbestos exposure. Finally, are those risks that are exacerbated 

as a result of the heat stress. 

ASBESTOS ISSUES IN THE TUNNELS AND VAULTS AS OF MAY 2, 2006 

A.What has the AIR SAMPLING shown so far? 

1. We have reviewed 79 ‘‘valid’’ sample results provided to us by the AOC. 

—‘‘Valid’’ means samples that were not overloaded, voided or field blanks. 

2. Nine (9) of these sample results exceeded 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter; however, only one employee’s exposure exceeded 0.1 fiber/cc after the results were adjusted for time. 

—0.1 fiber/cc is the OSHA permissible exposure limit (‘‘PEL’’) for an 8-hour timeweighted average (‘‘TWA’’). 

—‘‘Adjusted for time’’ means time-weighted or averaged for an 8- hour period. 
285 

3. The one employee whose ‘‘time-weighted’’ sample exceeded 0.1 fiber/cc had a 

TWA exposure of 0.30 fiber/cc averaged from the two (2) samples of his exposure 

for that day. 

—That employee was an AOC inspector, but it is not clear from the monitoring 

records what he was doing that produced a much higher exposure level. 

4. That employee’s 30-minute exposure (3.49 fiber/cc) exceeded the excursion limit. 

—The excursion limit (‘‘EL’’) is another OSHA PEL for asbestos; the EL limits 30- 

minute exposures to 1.0 fiber/cc. 

5. The documentation records did not have sufficient detail to explain why this 

worker’s exposure was significantly greater than the other employees’ sample results. 

6. The OOC performed five samples on Tunnel Shop employees last week. 

—The ‘‘preliminary’’ results for both time-weighted averages and 30-minute excursions have been less than the OSHA PELs. 

—‘‘Preliminary’’ means we have received facsimile results from the OSHA laboratory but do not have the formal confirmation of the results. 

7. The OOC monitoring for the Tunnel Shop is not complete. 

—During the sampling done last week, Tunnel Shop employees were performing 

escort duties, tracing circuits and walk-through duties. 

—These duties would not be expected to disturb the asbestos and create large exposures. 

—The OOC intends to sample Tunnel Shop employees during repairs and when 

they use equipment likely to disturb asbestos. 

—These tasks occur intermittently; therefore, it might take some months before 

the OOC’s sampling has been completed. 

B. Is the personal protective equipment (PPE) used in the tunnels adequate? 

1. From the sample results done so far, so good. The ‘‘half-face’’ respirators and 

Tyvek® coveralls (which also cover the shoes) provide adequate protection for these 

levels. 

—‘‘Half-face’’ respirators seal across the top of the nose and don’t cover the eyes. 

—‘‘Full-face’’ respirators seal across the forehead and shield the eyes. 

2. OSHA requires different types of respiratory protection for higher exposure levels. 

—Half-face respirators may be used if exposures don’t exceed 10 times the PEL. 

—The highest exposure (time-weighted and excursion) is 3 to 3.5 times the PEL. 

3. If future samples (done during operations that disturb asbestos more than the 

samples taken to date) exceed 10 times the PEL, full-face respirators would need 

to be used. 

—Higher levels would require even more protective respirators. 

—If levels exceed 10 times the PEL, then (at least) full-face ‘‘powered-air purifying’’ would be needed. 

—Levels higher than 100 times the PEL would require supplied-air respirators 

operated in the pressure demand mode. 

—The highest levels (more than 1,000 times the PEL) would also require an auxiliary self-contained breathing apparatus (often called an ‘‘escape bottle’’). 

C. What DECONTAMINATION is required? 

There are two sets of requirements for decontamination. 

1. One set is for workers who maintain the tunnels and the equipment within the 

tunnels. 

—Hygiene requirements for these workers are found in the General Industry 

Standard [§ 1910.1001]. 

2. A second set of requirements for hygiene is found in the Construction industry 

standard [§ 1926.1101] 

—The definition of construction work [§ 1926.32(g)] lists ‘‘construction, alteration, 

and/or repair.’’ 

—Workers who are abating the asbestos, performing cleanup associated with 

abatement activities, or performing construction, alterations and/or repair must 

comply with the Construction Industry requirements. 

D. What decontamination does the general industry standard require for asbestos? 

The General Industry requirements for ‘‘hygiene facilities and practices’’ lists the 

following required elements for employees who are exposed above a TWA or EL: 

—Clean change rooms must be provided with separate storage areas to prevent 

street clothes from being contaminated from protective clothing and equipment. 

—Showers must be used, at least at the end of the shift. 

—Employees required to shower must not wear clothing or equipment outside the 

workplace during the shift. 
286 

—Lunchroom facilities with positive pressure, filtered air supply must be readily 

accessible to employees. 

—Employees must wash their hands and faces before eating, drinking or smoking. 

—Employees must not enter lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or 

equipment unless surface asbestos fibers have been removed. 

E. What decontamination is required by the construction industry standard? 

1. The Construction Industry standard [§ 1926.1101(j)] has different ‘‘hygiene facilities and practices’’ required for different types of asbestos work. 

2. The most stringent requirements are for ‘‘large Class I’’ jobs. 

—‘‘Class I’’ work involves removing thermal system insulation or surfacing asbestos-containing materials or presumed asbestos-containing materials (‘‘ACM/ 

PACM’’). 

—‘‘Large jobs’’ involve more than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet of thermal system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM. 

3. The less stringent requirements are for ‘‘small’’ Class I jobs, and for Class II 

and Class III jobs where exposures exceed a PEL or where exposures have not been 

determined. 

—‘‘Small jobs’’ involve less than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet of thermal system 

insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM. 

—Class II work involves removing ACM other than that in Class I. Examples include: wallboard, floor tile, roofing, siding, and mastics. 

—Class III work involves repair and maintenance operations where ACM is likely 

to be disturbed. 

4. Employees doing Class IV work in a regulated must comply with the hygiene 

practices of the other employees in the area. 

—Class IV work during which employee contact, but do not disturb, ACM or 

PACM, and activities to clean up dust, waste and debris resulting from Class 

I, II and III activities. 

F. What decontamination is required for ‘‘large’’ Class I jobs? 

1. Decontamination area must be adjacent to, and connected with, the regulated 

area. 

The decontamination area must have an equipment room, shower, and clean room 

in series. 

—Employees must enter and exit through the decontamination area. 

2. Equipment rooms must have impermeable, labeled containers to contain and 

dispose of contaminated PPE. 

— Employees do not remove their respirators in the equipment room. 

3. A shower area must be adjacent to equipment room and the clean room, unless 

the employer can demonstrate that this location is not feasible. 

4. Where the shower area is not adjacent to the equipment room, before proceeding to the shower, employee must either— 

—remove contamination from their work suits using a HEPA vacuum, or 

—remove contaminated work suits and don clean work suits. 

5. A clean change room must be equipped with storage containers for each employee. 

—Employees must change into street clothing in the clean change rooms, or in 

a clean change area if a room adjacent to the equipment room is not feasible. 

—Upon entering a regulated area, employees must don PPE and respirators in 

the clean room or area. 

6. Lunch areas on site must be in areas where exposures are less than the PELs. 

G. What are the decontamination requirements for ‘‘small Class I’’ jobs, or ‘‘Class II’’ 

or ‘‘Class III’’ jobs where exposures either exceed a PEL or haven’t been determined? 

1. An equipment room or area must be established adjacent to the regulated area, 

covered by an impermeable drop cloth on the floor or horizontal working surface. 

—The room or area must have impermeable, labeled containers to contain and 

dispose of contaminated PPE. 

—Area must be of sufficient size for cleaning equipment and removing PPE without spreading visible contamination beyond the area. 

—Work clothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is removed. 

—All equipment and surfaces of containers must be cleaned before removing them 

from the equipment room or area. 

—Employees must enter and exit the regulated area through the equipment area. 
287 

H. What have our inspectors found regarding decontamination procedures? 

1. During an inspection, one of our inspectors observed a briefing to Tunnel Shop 

personnel from a safety contractor (Mr. Hedges from ‘‘The Safety Company’’) on 

AOC decontamination policy. 

—The stated goal was to use some General Industry and some Construction Industry requirements; that goal would not produce a compliant policy. 

—The briefing resulted in a discussion of end-of-day showering versus showering 

to prevent contamination from spreading into other campus buildings. 

—The only decontamination that our inspectors observed was the removal of PPE, 

which had been worn over the work clothes that are taken home for cleaning. 

I. What information is required in monitoring records? 

1. Monitoring records must include the following information [§ 1910.1001(m)(1) 

and § 1926.1101(n)(2)]: 

—The date of measurement; 

—The operation involving exposure to asbestos which is being monitored; 

—Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their accuracy; 

—Number, duration, and results of samples taken; 

—Type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any; and 

—Name, social security number and exposure of all employees whose exposure are 

represented. 

2. The two required items that we have found to be of concern in the past are: 

—The description of the operations lack sufficient detail to determine the potential sources and pathways of exposure. 

—For example, there is no information associated with the single employee 

whose exposure is 3 times the PEL to offer an explanation as to why both 

of his sample results on that day were much higher than the others. 

—All of the employees whose exposure is represented by a sample are not documented. 

—For example, the descriptions that AOC provided indicated one or two people 

were doing the same operations in the same area and, presumably, their exposures would be similar. The names of these employees, however, are not 

identified in the records. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. Now, rather than both your office 

and the AOC spending a lot of resources in litigation, I am interested in focusing on results wherever possible. Can the Office of 

Compliance work cooperatively with the Architect to come up with 

appropriate remedies to this, or has this litigation step made that 

impossible? 

Mr. EVELETH. No. I would certainly prefer to do it that way. I 

think that is really what should be done. I think we should be 

working—we do work—we do meet with the Architect monthly on 

other matters, as well. And we have worked fairly cooperatively 

with them. And I do not see why it could not be done in this instance. I also think that we could be working as well with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), because we know that they 

are involved in this, as well. And I would think that the combined 

resources of all of us—and as I have said before, we all lay our 

cards out on the table, because this is one entity, this is the legislative branch. This is not x corporation versus something or other. 

This is one entity, and I look forward to working with the Architect 

and GAO, if at all possible, in this. 

Senator ALLARD. I think one thing that would help us in working 

with him is to set priorities of those items that are most urgent to 

take care of and those that could be dealt with at a later time. We 

tried to work that out with our emergency supplemental request. 

But I think at some point in time we will ask you that question, 

and the Architect. So when you are discussing back and forth with 

one another, that would be an important helpful response for this 

subcommittee. 
288 

Mr. EVELETH. We would be certainly pleased to do that. And that 

is what we are trying to do. 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION APPROVED

METHODS FOR ABATING ASBESTOS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. Now the Architect of the Capitol testified last week that they were using Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) approved methods. From what you 

understand, are they using OSHA approved methods or not, or do 

you need to review the plan before you respond to that? 

Mr. EVELETH. Is this with respect to asbestos? 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. That is on the decontamination procedures. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. Right. Yes and no. We have reviewed some 

of the samples that we were provided and the data that accompanied that. I do not think that we received all the data yet. And 

in addition, we are also doing some asbestos testing ourselves, as 

an office. There are certain requirements that are set out under the 

OSHA regulations. And there are two problems that we are seeing 

now, and one is that there is a lack of a description of the operations, adequate description of the operations, that the tunnel 

workers, or whoever it is that is in the tunnel, could be the CMD 

people, as well as the tunnel workers who are doing work in the 

tunnels. 

And there is a lack of sufficient detail to determine what it is 

that they are doing. That is very important in order to make a determination about whether the levels of asbestos exceed the standards. Because you could just be walking through the tunnel, and 

it is not—you are not—if you are not engaged in your usual activity, you are not in a position to judge what the degree of risk is. 

And this is very important because the amount of protection that 

you are required to have, in terms of face masks and other things 

like that, come into play, depending on whether or not you are exceeding the exposure levels or not. If you exceed them greatly, then 

you need different kinds of masks than you would need if you are 

only exceeding it—— 

Senator ALLARD. If I remember his testimony, he talked about a 

half face mask—— 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. As opposed to a full face mask. 

Mr. EVELETH. There are full face masks there. And there are others, as well. 

Senator ALLARD. Do you think there might be a need for a full 

face mask? 

Mr. EVELETH. It would depend on the degree of exposure to asbestos. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. And if there is a great deal, then you need a full 

face mask. And if there is even more than that, then you need 

something that actually pumps air, oxygen, into the mask and so 

forth. 

Senator ALLARD. So you are not sure that they are complying 

with OSHA approved methods at this point. That is the bottom 

line. Is that correct? 
289 

Mr. EVELETH. I think that would be an accurate way of putting 

it. And also, there are issues, I think, that involve decontamination, that is to say, whether they provide a clean room for people 

to take off their work clothes, if there may be fibers of asbestos on 

it. There are certain requirements with regard to taking a shower 

before they go out of the area and so forth and so on. And some 

of those are still questionable. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, when you review his report that you just 

received—— 

Mr. EVELETH. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Keep that question in mind. If you 

could give us a more complete answer back, we would appreciate 

that. 

Mr. EVELETH. Okay. Happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Does the AOC follow OSHA-approved methods with regard to asbestos, 

in terms of personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures? 

Answer. The type of personal protective equipment (PPE) that is required depends 

on the exposure level. For example, if the level of exposure does not exceed 10 times 

the permissible exposure limit (PEL), half-face mask respirators may be used. The 

limited sample data available to date shows the highest exposure is 3 to 3.5 times 

the PEL. If this were the highest exposure, then half-face mask respirators would 

be adequate. If, however, future samples were taken during operations that disturbed asbestos more than the samples taken to date, and the samples exceeded 10 

times the PEL, full-face mask respirators would be required. See Asbestos Issues 

in the Tunnels and Vaults, B.1. below. Because we currently do not have sufficient 

data to ascertain whether the PPE now used in the tunnels is adequate, we cannot 

definitively determine the amount of asbestos to which workers are exposed in the 

course of performing their usual duties. 

With regard to decontamination procedures, based upon limited inspection, it did 

not appear that the decontamination procedures followed by the AOC in April 2006 

were fully code-compliant. As discussed more fully in Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels 

and Vaults, pp. 6–8, below, the OSHA General Industry Standard that applies to 

workers who maintain the tunnels and equipment within the tunnels sets forth specific protective measures for employees who are exposed to asbestos levels above the 

PEL. These include providing clean changing rooms with separate storage areas to 

prevent street clothes from being contaminated from protective clothing and equipment, showers, and limitations upon workers wearing protective equipment in areas 

outside the workplace. A second set of requirements is found in the Construction 

Industry Standard. We understand from recent discussions with the AOC that it 

will be revising its decontamination procedures to bring them into compliance with 

OSHA requirements. 

AIR SAMPLING

Senator ALLARD. Now, unfortunately, the Architect of the Capitol 

has not consistently and systematically sampled the air in the tunnels for the presence of asbestos. And as a result, we have no documentation on what exposure there may have been in the past. Is 

AOC currently using appropriate methods of sampling? Can you 

answer that question? 

Mr. EVELETH. I would prefer, if I could, to defer to submit this 

afterward, because I would rather use the knowledge of my safety 

experts on that. And they could give you a much more detailed 

and—— 

Senator ALLARD. That would be fine. 

Mr. EVELETH [continuing]. Precise answer. Because I am a lawyer, as you know, and—— 
290 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I will give you some time to do that. I 

am wondering is it unreasonable to request that you respond back 

to our concerns within 10 days? 

Mr. EVELETH. I think we could certainly do that. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Well, we will expect it in 10 days. If you 

cannot, if you would notify the subcommittee—— 

Mr. EVELETH. I will do so. 

Senator ALLARD. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Is the AOC currently using appropriate methods of sampling the air in 

the tunnels for the presence of asbestos? 

Answer. Sampling asbestos correctly necessitates collecting samples under all several scenarios, from those with the most exposure risk to those with the least. This 

includes taking samples under circumstances under which asbestos may be disturbed and become airborne. In our discussions with the AOC, it appears that it recognizes deficiencies in the methods it has employed in taking asbestos samples. Specifically, there are too few samples, taken under circumstances that are the least 

likely to disturb the asbestos, and the monitoring records lack sufficient detail to 

determine potential sources and pathways of exposure. For example, the monitoring 

is unrepresentative because the samples we reviewed were not taken when employees were performing duties such as performing repairs or using equipment likely to 

disturb asbestos and create greater exposures. Specific details follow in Asbestos 

Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults, A. 6&7 & I, below. 

DISTANCE BETWEEN EGRESS POINTS

Senator ALLARD. With respect to the new utility tunnel for the 

Capitol Visitor Center, we had some discussion on that in our last 

hearing as to the appropriate travel distance between egress points 

in such tunnels. Now that is a 750-foot tunnel that has no escape 

hatches. Is there a safety code that mandates what the distance 

should be? 

Mr. EVELETH. Yes, there is. And I would—let me give you, if I 

may, a brief response to that. And I will also supplement that, if 

I may. But it is my understanding, after speaking to our safety experts is that yes, there is a requirement. And as we understand it, 

the distance, there should be an exit at least every 800 feet, which 

means—in other words, there would be a 400-foot travel distance 

for an employee to get to an exit. It is every 800 feet if the tunnel 

is fire sprinkler protected. In other words, you get a greater distance if there is a sprinkler in there. If there is not—— 

Senator ALLARD. Is that tunnel that was just constructed fire 

sprinkler protected? 

Mr. EVELETH. We have not inspected that. I do not know the answer to that. But I do know that that is the requirement. In other 

words, there would be 600 feet between exits if it is not fire 

sprinklered. It is 800 if it is fire sprinklered. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. EVELETH. So that in this instance, it is assuming that it is 

not fire sprinklered. It would appear—but, of course, we have not 

inspected it. We do not know what it looks like. There may be 

something that we do not know about it. So I do not really want 

to opine more than I just have. 

Senator ALLARD. Now there seems to be more confusion. The Department of Labor has their Occupational Safety and Health Administration and they have a fire code here. It is the NEPA 101 
291 

Life Safety Code. If I refer to that document, does that make sense 

to you? 

Mr. EVELETH. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. In that document, in paragraph 40.2.6.1, 

they say the travel distance measured in accordance with section 

7.6, that is the travel distance to exits, shall not exceed 200 feet 

or 60 meters. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. But I believe that there is another section, 

which is 40.2.6.3. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Well, I think we are confused on the subcommittee. I am wondering if you can resolve this. 

Mr. EVELETH. Certainly. 

Senator ALLARD. And get a memo to us on that. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. Because there is a special exit travel distance requirement for low and ordinary hazard special purpose industrial occupancy. That is the way it—— 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. And that is apparently a more lenient issue. 

Senator ALLARD. It depends on the type of tunnel that you are 

dealing with. 

Mr. EVELETH. That is correct. That is correct. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Well, if you would work that out. 

Mr. EVELETH. Sure. 

Senator ALLARD. And we are interested in making sure that we 

are meeting the code with the new tunnel. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. That is the bottom line. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Clarify the travel distances between escape hatch for tunnels (with and 

without sprinkler). Which Life Safety code applies under what circumstances? 

Answer. The Life Safety Code was developed to provide protective measures for 

building occupants when there is a fire. However, the main hazard in Capitol Hill 

utility tunnels is a steam leak. Although most of the time when safety people think 

about a ‘‘travel distance’’ issue, they think of fire safety and the Life Safety Code, 

unfortunately, there is not a specific tunnel safety code. Although we are not certain 

what standard should apply in steam tunnels, we want to be very sure we understand what the generally applied practice is. There probably is an ‘‘industry practice’’ for the major tunnel designers and builders, and we have been received some 

preliminary data that indicates it may be about 500 feet, from exit to exit (pointto-point). We need to ascertain the industry practice in order to determine if the 

General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act applies in this circumstance; if there is an industry practice, the General Duty Clause requires that 

it be followed. 

Some of the remedies in the Life Safety Code to protect tunnel occupants from 

fire could actually make conditions in the tunnels more hazardous, if a steam leak 

were to occur. For example, a fire barrier would not help, because it would compartmentalize sections of the tunnel and cause steam buildup and intensity. If steam 

leaks, what the workers need to be able to do is to run away from the leak and 

get out of the area or tunnel. In the case of the Capitol Visitor Center utility tunnel 

the only safety item at issue is whether the distance between the two exits is too 

great. The tunnel was installed with only two exits—one at either end, with the distance between exits of almost 800 feet. 

We have had discussions of this issue with the AOC and the CVC contractors who 

built this tunnel. A review of the engineering consultant’s assertions to the AOC 

would appear to indicate that there is no outside limit to the travel distance that 

is required under the Life Safety Code due to the way the engineering contractor 

characterized the tunnel. We disagree with the underlying assertion that unlimited 

distance is acceptable, since, among other factors, the industry practice would suggest otherwise. 
292 

What we have been told by the AOC is that installing another egress point would 

be expensive and that there is no money for doing it. This week, the Office of Compliance met with representatives from the AOC and the CVC contractors, and explained to them that we wanted to do further research into the issue and verify 

what is the ‘‘acceptable norm’’ for tunnel egress, as a matter of industry practice. 

Until we’ve completed our research, the OOC is not taking the position that another 

egress is needed in the CVC tunnel, but we do want to find out what other organizations are doing when they build new utility tunnels. We anticipate that we will 

reach a conclusion by the end of this month, and we will so advise the Subcommittee. 

If an additional egress is required, the additional construction may be done after 

the CVC has been opened to the public. Hence, the opening need not be delayed by 

this consideration. 

FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

Senator ALLARD. As you know, a debate is going on now between 

the Architect of the Capitol’s fire marshal and the Capitol Police 

Board as to the fire alarm system in the Capitol Visitor Center. Do 

you have any comments as to how this issue can be resolved expeditiously, and who ultimately should have the authority to make 

the final determination? 

Mr. EVELETH. We have not been involved in these discussions or 

consulted in these discussions, but I think we are generally aware 

of the position of the fire marshal. Our position has been during 

our inspections, and this does not deal with the CVC, but our belief 

is that, certainly except for the Capitol, our belief is that if a fire 

alarm is pulled, then the alarm should go off. And rather than having it do what it does in the Capitol, where there is an annunciator 

board, and the Capitol Police then go and check to see whether 

there is actually a fire or not. And then they come back and do 

what they need to do. If there is a fire, obviously they allow the 

alarm to go off. 

That is a unique situation. And it is unique. And for a number 

of good reasons, it is done that way. But it is done that way because there are a large number of Capitol police available, which 

means that they can travel to the location of wherever that fire 

alarm has been pulled in short order and get back and do something about it. 

That is not the case with some of the larger office buildings on 

the Hill. And that is not the case with the visitor center, as well. 

So it would be—our belief is that when a fire alarm is pulled, that 

the alarm itself should sound. 

Senator ALLARD. So your recommendation would be to treat the 

Capitol Visitor Center like any of the other large buildings around 

and still keep the Capitol under its exemption status because of the 

number of officers that are available in the immediate area. 

Mr. EVELETH. That is correct. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. I understand that that is the position of 

the fire marshal. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. But it is not the position of the Police Board. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. EVELETH. That is correct. Right. Now your other question 

was who should make the decision, I believe. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 
293 

Mr. EVELETH. And normally the decision like that is made by the 

authority having jurisdiction, which, of course, is a term of art in 

the building industry. And normally that is an authority that is 

sort of independent of the parties in the sense that, for example, 

if I am a builder and I want to do something, I either have to follow code or I have to come up with something that provides the 

equivalent level of safety and protection, safety protection. And it 

is usually some independent entity that makes that decision. 

A number of years ago, a couple of years ago, the Architect asked 

to be designated as the authority having jurisdiction, so that it 

could in effect waive the prescriptive requirements and implement 

its own. This agency notified the Senate that it objected to that position, because it felt like it needed the separation between the individual deciding the case and the—I think that the—— 

Senator ALLARD. So the OOC has notified the Senate that they 

do not think there is enough distance between the Architect, as far 

as personal culpability, I guess, for you to be happy with the Architect making the decision. Is that right? 

Mr. EVELETH. We would not be happy with the Architect being 

the authority having jurisdiction over matters of which it is itself 

both an advocate for change and approving the change. And so that 

was the position we took then. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. EVELETH. Our position—— 

Senator ALLARD. Now where did that recommendation go to? 

Mr. EVELETH. I cannot recall. We received notice that they had 

asked for that authority. And we wrote a letter. And I cannot tell 

you at this point—— 

Senator ALLARD. Well, you had asked through the appropriation 

process. 

Mr. EVELETH. It could have been. I can dig that up. I just do not 

remember off the top of my head. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. But what I am getting at is I think we also took 

the position then that the Office of Compliance is a perfect model 

for being an authority having jurisdiction. That is to say, it is an 

independent entity that can make judgment about health and safety issues. And I would think that would also be true in this sort 

of situation. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. And there is a full method of litigating that, really, 

if they object and we would issue a citation, I mean, our board 

would decide. And if they wanted to challenge it in the court, they 

could do that. Hopefully, it would not come to all that. But it is the 

principle that we are talking about. 

Senator ALLARD. Hopefully you would work it out and quickly. 

Mr. EVELETH. Right. Right. We would do it, we would hope to do 

it quickly. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. EVELETH. We think the law is pretty clear on this. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. With regard to the debate between the Fire Marshall and the Capitol 

Police Board as to the fire alarm system in the Capitol Visitor Center, how can this 

issue be resolved expeditiously? Who should have the authority to make the final 
294 

determination? When and to whom in the Senate did the OOC recommend that the 

AOC not be the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ)? 

Answer. Relevant to the question of the proper procedures to be applied in the 

operation of the fire alarm systems in the CVC are the findings by the OOC’s General Counsel described in his biennial report to Congress, Report on Occupational 

Safety and Health Inspections during the 108th Congress pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act, pp. 19–21 (excerpt attached). As noted in that Report, 

under the Fire Code, a fire alarm system is required that activates a general alarm 

throughout a building to alert occupants of fire or other emergencies. 

There are two exceptions to this requirement. First, a positive alarm sequence is 

permitted that allows a three-minute delay in the activation of the general alarm. 

Trained personnel are allowed up to 180 seconds to investigate; if the system is not 

reset, all alarms are activated automatically. This delay is intended to permit an 

investigation to determine whether there is a false alarm. The AOC Fire Marshal 

has endorsed the use of the pre-signal sequence in the Capitol building where there 

is a sufficient number of trained officers on duty to enable them to complete an investigation within three minutes. The second exception permits a pre-signal system 

that requires that the initial fire alarm system be automatically transmitted without delay to a municipal fire department and an on-site person to respond to a fire 

emergency. The specific deficiencies in the existing fire alarm system procedures in 

the House and Senate office buildings are discussed in detail in the Report. 

With regard to who should have the authority to make the final determination 

on this and other issues, we noted some of this agency’s concerns in a letter to the 

Honorable C.W. Bill Young dated February 20, 2004 (copy attached). Although the 

Life Safety code does have not any conflict of interest restrictions, other building 

codes do place such restrictions on the official enforcing the code. If the Appropriations and relevant Oversight Committees determine that the Office of Compliance 

should be specifically designated as the authority having jurisdiction over these 

matters or to resolve disputes between other entities, the Office is well-situated to 

handle such responsibilities. Indeed, under the Congressional Accountability Act, 

the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance is designated to serve as a neutral forum for resolving all disputes arising under the CAA, subject to court review. 

In particular, Congress vested the Board with the authority to determine whether 

a modification in the application of a health or safety standard is warranted because 

of special circumstances. In particular, by virtue of § 1341(c)(4) of the CAA, employing offices may request from the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance 

variances from the health and safety standards otherwise applicable by showing 

that the alternative proposed would provide a place of employment which is as safe 

and healthful as required by the standard from which the variance is sought. Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance, § 4.26 (b)(4). Alternatively, the citation and/ 

or complaint procedures under the Office of Compliance’s Occupational Safety and 

Health Act jurisdiction could be followed to make a final decision on the issue. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony. You have been 

helpful. 

Mr. EVELETH. Thank you. 
(295) 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. JAMES, PUBLIC PRINTER 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MIKE WASH, CHIEF TECHNICAL OFFICER 

STEVE SHEDD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

Senator ALLARD. We will go to the next panel now. Our next 

panel will be the Government Printing Office. 

I want to welcome Mr. Bruce James and his team. GPO is requesting $151 million, an increase of $29 million over the current 

year or a 24-percent increase. The increase is in part due to the 

requirement to update the U.S. Code over 6 years, as well as some 

initiatives to further modernize the agency. 

Mr. James, you have accomplished much in your 4 years as Public Printer, and we appreciate your service. You have a great deal 

to be proud of, including reversing the trend of annual losses at the 

Government Printing Office, revamping the agency into, as you put 

it, a 21st century digital platform capable of addressing ongoing 

technological changes in how information is processed and disseminated, and developing new business lines, such as the electronic 

passports. 

You will be a tough act to follow. And we hope you will stay on 

in the Government Printing Office until the President can find a 

suitable replacement. We look forward to reviewing the various initiatives you have requested for fiscal year 2007 and a status report 

of your efforts to make further improvements to modernize the 

Government Printing Office. 

You may proceed with your testimony now, Mr. James. 

OPENING REMARKS OF BRUCE R. JAMES

Mr. JAMES. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Good morning. 

Mr. JAMES. I have a statement I would like to submit for the 

record. 

Senator ALLARD. I will ask unanimous consent. Without objection, we will do that. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you. And I will make a few opening remarks. 

But before I do, I would like to introduce two of my colleagues at 

the table with me. The first is Mike Wash, who is the Chief Technical Officer of the Government Printing Office. Mike came in 

about 2 years ago to join us and has the responsibility for evaluating new technologies that are coming down the road that could 

impact Government printing, particularly the dissemination of Government information. 

He also has a responsibility for the development of what we are 

calling the future digital system, which is the system that will ingest all Government information and then be in a position to re-
296 

process that information and send it to the Internet or send it out 

for printing or however else in the future someone might want to 

use it. 

I also have with me Steve Shedd, who is the Chief Financial Officer of the Government Printing Office. Steve has been with us for 

nearly 3 years now. He came to us after experience in the private 

sector both with private and public companies as a chief financial 

officer. And they will assist me, if you ask me any tough questions. 

Now as I was sitting in the audience, Mr. Chairman, I could not 

help but observe your shirt. And, you know, some people might just 

say, well, this is just another shirt with, you know, a suit. But as 

I sat out there, I was trying to think of the exact mix of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black that I would use to print that shirt, to reproduce it. And, you know, that got me thinking that much of what 

we do at the Government Printing Office is just that subject, that 

there is a certain mix of colors that we would use in printing ink 

to reproduce that shirt accurately. 

That would be analog printing, of course. But interestingly 

enough, if we presented it in a digital form on a TV set or on a 

computer screen, there would be a different set of primary colors 

involved with it. And I think what has happened here not only in 

the Government, but what has happened in the information industry, is that for many, many years we went along as if everything 

would be printed. So all of the information was gathered. It was 

maintained. It was coded for future printing. 

And what we found, of course, today is that printing is just one 

way of delivering information. As a matter of fact, much of the 

Government’s information is now being delivered in digital format, 

as you are well aware. Last year, the Government Printing Office 

put 92 percent of all Government publications on the Internet. And 

the 8 percent missing is because we have not figured out how to 

do maps and other kinds of things, but we will get there. 

So we are making great progress. There are certain things that 

we are focused on, in particular that I am focused on, in my last 

months of service. First is the GPO building complex itself. In 

terms of square footage, the complex is twice the size of the Capitol. It is almost the size of the Empire State Building. It is a very 

large building complex that was built for a different purpose than 

the enterprise that we have today. At one time, there were nearly 

10,000 employees housed in the Government Printing Office buildings. Today we are down to just above 2,000. And we do not see 

that number of employees climbing greatly. 

So we have a facility that is obsolete in every way. Now rather 

than come to this subcommittee and to Congress and ask for public 

funds to replace that building and re-equip it for the future, instead we have worked out, I think, a very ingenious plan for converting the existing real estate we have into cash that would allow 

us to build a new building and equip that building as we need to 

do without losing title to that property for the Government. 

What is significant about that is that about $35 million of what 

we spend each year at the Government Printing Office goes to the 

maintenance of this obsolete campus. And it is money that we 

would not have to otherwise spend if we were not there. 
297 

And, you know, I sit here in front of you asking for a relatively modest amount of money. But I want you to think about that $35 

million that we are spending each year that we do not have to 

spend. If we get on with this building project, we will be able to 

actually reduce the request to this subcommittee for appropriations 

each year. So any help that you can give us in helping to move this 

project along, we would much appreciate it. 

The second very important thing that we are engaged in is the 

building of the future digital system, which falls under Mike Wash. 

That system, as I mentioned 1 minute ago, is the future. What it 

will do is take Government information into the system. It will not 

be coded for printing. It will have a generic coding scheme in it 

that both identifies the kind of information it is, whether it is a 

headline or a paragraph or what it is. 

It also will contain the source, who created the document, when 

was it created, that type of information. And it will be stored in 

such a way that it will allow us to authenticate the fact that the 

information is actually what the author wrote. It will allow us to 

preserve that information in perpetuity. And it will allow us to repurpose that information and send it out however the Government 

might require it in the future, or however a public user might want 

that information in the future. 

The third thing that I think is very important is that it is one 

thing to take the ongoing information of the Government and be 

prepared to deliver it digitally. But, you know, we have a 200-year 

history. And that history is very important. We have tons, carloads, 

trucks, warehouses full of paper all across the country that represent the legacy documents of the United States Government. 

Now we are very fortunate to have 1,250 library partners in the 

Federal depository library system, which has maintained those 

books for us in print, and not only maintained those books, but 

most importantly have helped the public get the information from 

those books. 

But our libraries are changing. The entire world is changing. 

And we have to be able to go back and digitize that legacy collection and also make it available over the Internet. Now we believe 

we probably can find the funds to do this ourselves, with not much 

help from Congress. 

The next area that we are focused on is workforce retraining. We 

have a lot of people at GPO that are used to the analog world, 

those who once set type with linotype machines, once made plates, 

once operated offset presses. And I do not believe they are threatened in any way by the changes that we are talking about. As a 

matter of fact, our 23 bargaining units have been very supportive 

of the changes that we are making. And I think the reason is that 

over our 145-year history we have been through many technological 

changes, each of which made the Government Printing Office 

stronger. And they see this as just part of a pattern. 

But we owe it to these folks to build on the skills that they have 

acquired over the years, to now introduce and train them in new 

digital skills. And we are focused on that. 

We also are focused on replacing our legacy computer systems. 

You hear this, the Appropriations Committee hears this, almost 

from every agency. When I walked in the door, I could not believe 
298 

the state of the computer systems. I mean, these were machines 

that I had not seen in 30 years that were held together with spit 

and chewing gum. And as our employees retire, we had a 81-yearold retire not so long ago, I mean, we are losing the skills that are 

required to keep those systems up to date. So we are in the process 

of replacing our legacy computer systems with state-of-the-art 

equipment that is properly sized, properly constructed to be able to 

allow us to move along in the future. And we are asking for help 

in regard to replacing those systems. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

And the last thing that we are all focused on, particularly Judy 

Russell, the Superintendent of Documents, with me, and that is 

working with our Federal depository libraries to create the Federal 

depository library system of the future. It is clear that as we 

change in the way we process information, libraries, too, are changing. And we want to make sure that we are completely aligned 

with our libraries. These have been very valuable partners for 

many years. And we do not want to lose the value of that partnership, which we believe is helping the American public find and use 

Government information. 

And that concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. JAMES

Mr. Chairman 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 2007. 

Mr. Chairman, this will be the last time I have the privilege of appearing before 

you. Over the past three years, with the strong support of this Subcommittee, we 

have managed to turn GPO in a new direction, one that promises a positive future 

for our great agency for many years to come. Now, after three and a half years of 

working to achieve that result and much more, it is time for me to begin the plans 

for return to my home in Nevada. My pledge was to remain as Public Printer for 

the 3 to 5 years it would take to reposition GPO for the future. I have advised the 

President that I will continue to serve until a new Public Printer is chosen. I want 

to assure you that I will work hard to make a smooth transition of leadership so 

that GPO does not miss a step going forward. 

2005 RESULTS

Since my appointment as Public Printer, we have been transforming GPO into a 

21st century digital platform capable of addressing ongoing technological changes in 

how information is processed and disseminated. 

Our goal is to provide Government information in the form and formats our customers want and need in this burgeoning digital era, and to ensure that the abiding 

mission of the GPO—Keeping America Informed—continues to be carried out for 

generations to come. 

A primary order of business has been restoring and maintaining GPO’s financial 

health. I am pleased to report that our efforts to modernize and prepare GPO for 

the future, with Congress’s support, are generating measurable—and ever improving—returns to GPO’s bottom line. 

Net income from consolidated GPO operations for fiscal year 2005 increased to 

$6.1 million from $1.3 million the previous year, reversing the pattern of losses from 

the last decade. We also recorded another reduction to our long-term liability for the 

Federal workers compensation program. 

Our financial turnaround has also been aided significantly by efforts to right-size 

GPO’s workforce through voluntary separation incentive programs supported by 

Congress. In 2003 and 2004 we reduced GPO’s workforce by 542 positions, resulting 

in a savings in personnel compensation and benefits costs of about $38 million annually. 
299 

During the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, another incentive program, which was 

carried out under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 

Law 108–447), resulted in a further reduction of 89 positions. Recurring annual savings from this recent program will be approximately $8 million commencing October 

1, 2006. 

Fiscal year 2005 marked a turning point in our transformation efforts with the 

release early in the year of our Strategic Vision for the 21st Century, which was 

transmitted to Congress and distributed to GPO’s stakeholders in both the public 

and private sectors. 

This document provides a framework for how our transformation goals—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 agencywide including retraining to provide needed skills, and relocation of the GPO to facilities that are sized and equipped to meet our future needs—will be carried out 

and funded. During the year we made significant progress in each of these directions. 

The core of our future operations will revolve around a digital content system that 

we currently refer to as FDsys, for Future Digital System. FDsys is being designed 

to organize, manage, and output authenticated content for any use or purpose. 

With the approval for transferring the unexpended balances of prior year appropriations to GPO’s revolving fund, we secured the majority of the funds we will need 

to bring FDsys into operation. In the development of this system, we are engaging 

key elements of our customer community in Congress, in Federal agencies, and in 

the library community, and we are working under the guidance of the Joint Committee on Printing. 

We created a new business line for Security and Intelligent Documents in 2005 

that consolidates our longstanding expertise in security documents and offers a 

broad range of consultative services to Congress and Federal agencies attempting 

to respond to new standards and statutory requirements in this area. An early product of the unit was the security printing requested by the Joint Congressional Committee on the Inauguration to support the first Presidential inaugural ceremonies 

since 9/11. This business unit is working closely with the Social Security Administration, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other 

Federal agencies with secure and intelligent documents responsibilities. 

We also created a new Digital Media Services business line to provide essential 

retraining in digital production skills and eventually generate content from legacy 

documents for ingest to FDSys. We are developing an efficient and cost-effective approach to legacy digitization to be carried out by this new business line, and are 

currently engaged in a demonstration project as approved by the Joint Committee 

on Printing. 

During 2005 we endowed other business lines with new capabilities. To improve 

plant production efficiency and broaden the range of product and service options for 

Congress and Federal agencies, we invested in a variety of new color and digital 

production technologies. 

We augmented our expert printing procurement services by partnering with a nationwide firm to provide innovative new convenience duplicating and printing services to Federal agencies across the country. This contracting mechanism features 

provisions for capturing Federal documents electronically, which will significantly 

assist our efforts to broaden the availability of Federal information for public access 

and reduce the incidence of ‘‘fugitive documents.’’ We also significantly increased the 

dollar limit on our popular simplified purchase agreements, expanding and simplifying the ability of Federal agencies to procure products and services directly from 

lists of pre-qualified vendors without first having to go through GPO. 

Under the leadership of GPO’s Superintendent of Documents, we engaged the depository library community in a dialog to define the future of the Federal Depository 

Library Program while continuing to move the Program toward a predominately 

electronic basis as required by Congress. The total number of titles we now make 

available on GPO Access (www.gpoaccess.gov) increased to more than 300,000, with 

an average of 37 million retrieved every month, and the dollars we now dedicate 

to distributing print publications to depository libraries has fallen by at least 50 percent over the past decade. 

In our Sales of Publications Program, we developed a plan to partner with private 

sector sales and distribution providers who can expand Government publications 

sales offerings to the public, implementing a key recommendation of a management 

audit of GPO ordered by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in Public Law 105–55. The plan would also return a portion of the revenues to GPO. We 

have issued a Request for Proposal for these services. 
300 

We continued work on our Oracle enterprise system, which will replace a number 

of labor intensive accounting and inventory functions with IT solutions, reducing 

cost and speeding work throughput. Expanded employee training opportunities were 

also made available, ranging from new offerings on the shop floor to ‘‘transformational leadership’’ seminars for all supervisors and managers. Our Digital 

Conversion System will also provide new retraining opportunities. 

Although the GPO is not subject to the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA), we take the spirit and intent of its provisions seriously, particularly its emphasis on performance measurement. During the year we worked to design systems 

to provide quantitative measurement in evaluating the progress of our strategic and 

management initiatives, and in this request we are seeking funds to implement that 

system. 

Progress toward our goal to relocate the GPO to new facilities moved ahead in 

fiscal year 2005 with the delivery of a formal plan for this project by our expert real 

estate advisory consultant. The plan, along with draft legislative language to authorize the project, was submitted to our oversight and Appropriations Committees 

accompanied by legislative briefings. We also began work on a plan to establish an 

ancillary production site for passports and other essential Government documents, 

and will be consulting further with our oversight committee on this matter this 

year. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST

Our fiscal year 2007 appropriations request is designed to provide for: 

—Continuation of our congressional printing and binding operations and information dissemination services at required levels; 

—Essential investment in projects to continue the transformation of the Federal 

Depository Library Program to a predominately electronic basis, by improving 

the cataloging, preservation, authentication, and provision of public access to 

electronic Federal Government information; and 

—Investment in information technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 

of GPO’s operations, and completion of the program we have begun to retrain 

GPO’s workforce to meet changing technology demands. 

Congressional Printing and Binding.—For the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation, which covers printing and related services for Congress, we are 

requesting $100,285,000. This is an increase of $13,076,000 over the level provided 

for fiscal year 2006. As you know, the funding level provided for this appropriation 

in fiscal year 2006 is equal to fiscal year 2005, minus the one percent rescission. 

The increase is required to cover mandatory pay and price level changes and projected changes in specific congressional printing categories based on historical data, 

and is partially offset by ongoing improvements in productivity. Mandatory items 

include funding for the production of the 2006 Edition of the U.S. Code, which by 

law is fully updated and issued every six years by the Office of the Law Revision 

Counsel, as well as required support capabilities residing at the alternative computing facility. Our request also provides funding to begin investment in a new generation of publishing systems that will be capable of fully supporting Congress’s current and future information product needs. 

Salaries and Expenses Appropriation.—For the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents, we are requesting $43,000,000, an increase of $9,996,000 over the level provided for fiscal year 2006. This appropriation 

provides for the cataloging, indexing, and distribution of Government publications 

to Federal Depository and International Exchange libraries and other recipients designated by law. 

The increase is necessary for mandatory pay and price level changes, increased 

information technology support costs, and distribution of the 2006 edition of the 

U.S. Code to depository libraries and other recipients as required by law. Equally 

as important, our request includes funding for essential investments to sustain our 

commitment to meeting the changing needs of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) in the digital era. For fiscal year 2005, 71 percent of all new titles 

made available to the FDLP were in online format only, while an additional 21 percent of new titles were in electronic and one or more tangible formats such as print 

or microfiche. Only 8 percent of new were made available in print only. In other 

words, 92 percent of new titles in the program were made available online, whether 

or not there were tangible equivalents. 

As this data shows, the FDLP is now a predominately electronic program. The 

funding increase we are seeking will nurture and sustain the digital transformation 

of the FDLP, expanding the availability of the program’s resources nationwide while 

providing for essential improvements to ensure permanent access and authenticity. 
301 

The projects we are proposing include digital conversion of GPO’s pre-1976 cataloging records to expand the availability of our online catalog resource; targeted capital investment for authentication and other technologies supporting GPO Access; 

authentication and cataloging of Web-harvested documents; and essential training 

for depository librarians and other user support. 

Our request is also designed to advance another key initiative of our strategic vision for the future. In cooperation with the Library of Congress and the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA), we are developing an agreement 

under which the three agencies will make a concerted effort to digitize and provide 

online public access to Federal documents reaching back to the Nation’s earliest 

days. As a result of this effort, the comprehensive historical collection of Federal 

publications—reports, legislation, congressional proceedings, executive orders, presidential papers, regulations, and more—will be available for search and retrieval at 

the push of a button from any library, classroom, office, or home. We are now involved in a demonstration project for legacy digitization. 

As our society becomes increasingly electronic, the demand for access to Government information—including information that until now has been available only in 

print—is growing. Several elements of both the public and private sectors have 

begun to respond to need for retrospective digitization to meet that demand and reduce costs to libraries. These efforts are commendable, but with their proliferation 

there is a growing need for an approach that will ensure standardization, comprehensiveness, and efficiency while preventing wasteful overlap and duplication of 

effort. I have met on this subject with the Librarian of Congress and the Archivist 

of the United States and we expect to conclude an agreement on this effort in the 

near future. While GPO will fund its role in this effort from available resources, our 

request for fiscal year 2007 includes $2 million to provide data tagging and related 

technical support for newly digitized content that is made available to the FDLP. 

Revolving Fund.—For GPO’s revolving fund, we are requesting an appropriation of $8,231,000, an increase of $6,251,000 over the level provided for fiscal year 2006. 

This will provide funds to acquire essential information technology infrastructure 

and systems development, including risk reduction and security enhancements, computer-aided manufacturing, replacement of our antiquated job-cost reporting system, 

implementation of a Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) compliance 

system, and other measures. Our request will also be used to complete the training 

program we have initiated with fiscal year 2006 funds to define GPO’s workforce 

needs, assess the skills of current employees, identify the gaps, and design and deliver targeted, just-in-time training to close those gaps. A well-trained workforce and 

modernized information technology architecture are prerequisites to implementing 

our vision of GPO’s digital future. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, thank you for all the support you have shown for our efforts to transform 

GPO. With your support we can continue our record of achievement. We look forward to working with you in your review and consideration of our request. 

FACILITY RELOCATION

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you for your testimony, Mr. James. 

We have just a few questions here. 

It appears that your plans to move the Government Printing Office out of the current facility are not moving along quite as expeditiously as you would like. If the Government Printing Office is unable to relocate in the near future, how will that impact the Government Printing Office’s plans to further modernize its operations? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, we are not going to let a building stop us. I 

mean, the Government Printing Office is not about a building. It 

is about systems and people. And so we are not about to let a 

building stop us. But I think this is maybe even more personal to 

me as the leader of the GPO. It just to me is a travesty to allow 

taxpayer money to be flushed down the drain the way we are doing 

this. 

I mean, we can do a better job. And that is what I have been 

working at, to try and give the taxpayers a better deal on this. And 

I know that you have, too. This subcommittee and the House Ap-
302 

propriations Committee have been working with us all the way 

along on trying to get this done, too. 

TOP CHALLENGES

Senator ALLARD. What are the top challenges that you face or 

the Government Printing Office faces? And what advice would you 

provide for your successor? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, I think the things I’ve talked about today are 

the remaining big challenges in front of the Government Printing 

Office. The most important things, I think, that I have done over 

the last almost 4 years are to make certain we had the right people 

in the right positions and then to help them to develop a long-term 

strategy that would serve the American public and serve Congress, 

and then to help get that program off and going. And we are there. 

The remaining big challenges include the redevelopment of the 

building. And, you know, it is not just a matter of getting congressional approval to proceed. Once we have that approval, there is a 

big challenge of finding a new location for the GPO and hiring an 

architect and building a building and equipping that building. So 

that is probably the largest challenge. 

And I think that everything surrounding digital information is 

the other challenge. I think Mike Wash and his team are doing a 

superb job of building the system, but it will require continual attention and strict attention to make sure it is successful. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES

Senator ALLARD. Given the budget constraints we are faced with, 

it is unlikely that we are going to be able to come up with a 24- 

percent increase. It will probably be something less than that. And 

as I have asked of all the other agencies, I hope you can give us 

a prioritized list, because that would be very helpful as we negotiate with the House on this, if we know which things are most important to you. I would hate to think that in the negotiating process we gave up the most valuable for something of less importance. 

Mr. JAMES. Sure. 

Senator ALLARD. So it would help us to make sure that your 

agency gets its badly needed resources in the proper priority. 

Mr. JAMES. We would be pleased to do that. And I think we have 

a good relationship with staff and would be pleased to work with 

them and help them understand the priorities. 

Senator ALLARD. If you could do that, for the record, we would 

appreciate it. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir, be happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

GPO FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS PRIORITIES

CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING AND BINDING

In millions 

Fiscal year 2006 Enacted Level ............................................................................................................................... $87.2 

Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level .......................................................................................................................... 100.3 

Total Increase Originally Requested ........................................................................................................... 13.1 
303 

Approximately $12.1 million is needed for essential requirements, including funding for mandatory pay and price changes to cover contractual wage agreements and 

inflation, an adjustment to the fiscal year 2006 base to cover a projected shortfall 

for fiscal year 2006 (which will be funded from unexpended balances of prior year 

appropriations transferred to the revolving fund last year), anticipated workload increases in several congressional printing categories based on projections from historical data, and the production of official and bylaw copies of the 2006 edition of the 

U.S. Code in accordance with statutory requirements. Additional requirements of $1 million include funding for a planned replacement 

of GPO’s Microcomp composition system, which will require the approval of the 

Joint Committee on Printing. 

In millions 

Essential Requirements: 

Mandatory pay and price changes ................................................................................................................. $2.3 

Adjustment to fiscal year 2006 base ............................................................................................................. 1.4 

Anticipated workload increases ...................................................................................................................... 3.7 

Production of 2006 U.S. Code ........................................................................................................................ 4.7 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 12.1 

Additional Requirements: Microcomp replacement ................................................................................................. 1.0 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

In millions 

Fiscal Year 2006 Enacted Level .............................................................................................................................. $33.0 

Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level .......................................................................................................................... 43.0 

Total Increase Originally Requested ........................................................................................................... 10.0 

With the exception of the mandatory pay increases and the printing and distribution of copies of the 2006 edition of the U.S. Code to depository libraries, GPO’s requested increase of approximately $10 million covers projects directly related to the 

broad range of information life-cycle activities required by the congressionally-mandated transition to a primarily electronic Federal Depository Library Program 

(FDLP) and to building the infrastructure to support it. Because these activities are 

interrelated and support each other, GPO must proceed with multiple priorities to 

meet Title 44 mandates in the online information environment. 

If funding at the originally requested level is not an option, GPO will scale back 

digital initiatives or slow down progress on the electronic transition rather than 

pursue one or two priorities to the exclusion of others. Elimination or more substantial reduction of any of these activities through funding prioritization will necessitate consultation with the depository library community. 

If appropriations cuts are required GPO could still support its mission with essential requirements totaling approximately $7.1 million, a 29 percent reduction from 

the initial request for the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. These requirements 

include mandatory pay and related costs, printing and distribution of the 2006 edition of the U.S. Code for depository libraries, expenses due to investment in IT and 

GPO’s Future Digital System (FDsys), FDLP training and user support of FDsys 

(with funding reduced by 20 percent, or $265,000, from the original request), conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records (with funding reduced by 63 percent, or 

$500,000; implementation of this project will be modified from a single multi-year 

contract to multiple single-year contracts, with requests for funding to be made in 

subsequent years), cataloging of web-harvested documents (with funding reduced by 

10 percent, or $63,000), authentication of web-harvested and digitized documents 

(with funding reduced by 10 percent, or $45,000), and capital expenses associated 

with authentication and access. 

Additional requirements shown below total approximately $2.9 million. They include funds for data tagging and processing new digitized content for access (while 

a demonstration project for legacy digitization has been authorized by the Joint 

Committee on Printing, GPO does not yet have authorization for the full legacy 

digitization project, and if not provided for fiscal year 2007, funding could be requested in subsequent years once the project is approved), as well as restoration of 

the reductions shown above for FDLP training and user support for FDsys, conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records, cataloging of web-harvested documents, authen-
304 

tication of web-harvested and digitized documents, and capital expenses associated 

with authentication and access. 

In millions 

Essential Requirements: 

Mandatory pay and related costs ............................................................................................................. $0 .8 

U.S. Code 2006 edition, printing and distribution ................................................................................... 2 .0 

Expenses due to investment in IT and FDsys .......................................................................................... 1 .2 

FDLP training and user support of FDsys ................................................................................................ 1 .1 

Conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records ............................................................................................. .3 

Cataloging of web-harvested documents ................................................................................................. .6 

Authentication of web-harvested and digitized documents ..................................................................... .4 

Capital expenses associated with authentication and access ................................................................ .7 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 .1 

Additional Requirements: 

FDLP training and user support of FDsys ................................................................................................ .3 

Conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records ............................................................................................. .5 

Cataloging of web-harvested documents ................................................................................................. .05 

Authentication of web-harvested and digitized documents ..................................................................... .05

Data tagging and processing new digitized content for access ............................................................. 2 .0 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 .9 

REVOLVING FUND

In millions 

Fiscal Year 2006 Enacted Level .............................................................................................................................. $2.0 

Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level (Fiscal year 2007 request is a total of $3 million for training and $5.2 

million for IT projects; fiscal year 2006 enacted provided $2 million for training) ......................................... 8.2

Total Increase Originally Requested ........................................................................................................... 6.2 

Of the requested increase, approximately $1.0 million is needed for essential requirements, which represents an increase over the funds provided for fiscal year 

2006 for workforce training and development to provide GPO employees with the 

skills needed for GPO’s digital future. Total funds approved for fiscal year 2006 for 

training were $2 million; GPO is requesting a total of $3 million for training for fiscal year 2007. 

Additional requirements of $5.2 million are requested for high risk infrastructure 

replacement to cover 8 projects to mitigate high technical risk areas, a secure documents system infrastructure to provide IT support for GPO’s secure and intelligent 

documents business unit, a computer-aided manufacturing system to integrate 

GPO’s production systems with IT monitoring, replacement of GPO’s outdated 

PROBE system that provides job cost tracking, an application infrastructure to integrate GPO business systems into Oracle, a Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) compliance system to monitor and evaluate program performance, and 

a metadata repository to standardize data used in GPO’s business systems. 

In millions 

Essential Requirements: Workforce retraining ......................................................................................................... $1.0 

Additional Requirements: 

High risk infrastructure replacement ............................................................................................................. 2.3 

Secure documents system infrastructure ....................................................................................................... .8 

Computer-aided manufacturing ...................................................................................................................... .5 

PROBE replacement ........................................................................................................................................ .5 

Oracle application infrastructure .................................................................................................................... .5 

GPRA compliance system and implementation .............................................................................................. .3 

Metadata repository ........................................................................................................................................ .3 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................ 5.2 
305 

EMPLOYEE RETRAINING

Senator ALLARD. Now Congress approved $2 million in the Government Printing Office 2006 budget for workforce training. Can 

you update us on your efforts on that? 

Mr. JAMES. You want to know how we spent that money? 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. We want to know what the results are. 

Mr. JAMES. I would like to submit the specifics for the record. 

But I will give you sort of a general view of what we have done 

with this. 

In my judgment, the most important thing was to make certain 

our 330 supervisors are completely trained in what being a supervisor is all about. In the past, we moved people from the workforce 

that were skilled craftsmen just almost based on seniority into 

these, what I call, these leadership positions without sufficient 

background and training of what it takes to be a leader. 

So the first thing we did was focus on helping all of our roughly 

330 supervisors/leaders to understand their responsibilities and 

what they need to do in a digital world and actually in a world of 

today. And we used the strategic vision document as the working 

tool of how to get them to understand what their role was and how 

to carry this down to employees. 

We then set up a new business unit that we call the digital 

media group. And this is the group that will do the conversion of 

the legacy documents of the Government into digital documents. 

And this will create hands-on training for hopefully several hundred GPO employees over the next few years as we complete that 

digitization. So those are the big initiatives that were undertaken 

in the last year. But I will give you a full explanation of that for 

the record. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

USE OF GPO TRAINING FUNDS

For fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1.9 million (after rescission) to 

GPO’s revolving fund for workforce development and training. 

Approximately $500,000 has been allocated to a demonstration project for the 

digitization of selected legacy Government documents that has been approved by the 

Joint Committee on Printing. The project will train a targeted element of GPO’s 

workforce in essential digitization skills. 

Approximately $100,000 has been allocated to the provision of training in PC 

skills, electronic publishing, new pre-press technologies, customer service improvement, and apprentice training. 

The balance of the funds are for a GPO-wide skills assessment and implementation of retraining and include the following: $170,000 for a needs analysis and skills 

assessment, $630,000 for classroom training, $270,000 for e-training, $130,000 for 

a Learning Management System, and $100,000 for career transition services. 

ELECTRONIC PASSPORT PROGRAM

Senator ALLARD. What is the status of the electronic passport 

program that you are working on with the State Department? 

Mr. JAMES. That is one of the most challenging jobs that we have 

had. The State Department is one of our best customers. And as 

you know, this is a program that has been mandated by Congress. 

And that is to include a biometric chip in all of the U.S. passports. 

And the law is requiring that of other countries, too, that want to 

have the visa exemption. 
306 

We have been working for about 2 years on that program with 

the State Department. We actually have working samples out in 

the field right now. We are delivering official passports. I believe 

in the last couple of weeks, we started delivering official passports 

with chips and antennas. We have learned a lot in this process. We 

probably have more knowledge than perhaps any other organization in the country at this point about what goes into dealing with 

these chips in a paper product. 

As a matter of fact, we have learned so much that we are looking 

at sharing this with other agencies to meet some of their requirements, both for ID cards and for other kinds of secure and intelligent documents that the Government will need. I have come to 

the conclusion that I think the Government Printing Office can be 

of great service to other agencies in the development and maintaining of a proprietary Government technology that will help ensure 

that documents cannot be counterfeited and they are authentic documents. 

We are looking at doing this with some interesting models. We 

are looking at getting in the business of producing ID cards. 

Senator ALLARD. What kind of ID cards? 

Mr. JAMES. These are the new ID cards that are required that 

have RFD devices in them that will be for all agency employees. 

And there we are looking at the possibility of doing a Governmentowned, contractor-operated plant within GPO facilities. In other 

words, taking the best advantage of the private sector and their 

know-how and how to officially manufacture, but yet keeping it 

within a Government facility for the necessary security protections. 

So we have learned at lot. We have made great progress. I think 

this will be one of the fast-growing areas in the future for the Government Printing Office. 

Senator ALLARD. So you actually have it in some passports now. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, we do. 

Senator ALLARD. Is that part of the trial basis, or is this now just 

part of routine procedure in those few that you have out there? 

Mr. JAMES. I think you are asking me to speak for my customer 

here, the State Department, on this. And it is my impression that 

we are still moving cautiously. You know, with old U.S. passports, 

I should say the former passports, we knew what would happen if 

somebody left it in the trunk of their car or ran it through a washing machine. You know, we need more experience here in what 

happens in the real world as people use these devices or these 

passports, so that we can make certain that the manufacturing 

techniques we have used will withstand as much as they possibly 

can. So we are moving cautiously on this one. 

FUTURE OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. You also said you are engaging the 

depository library community in a dialogue on the future of the depository library system. What is the status of that effort? 

Mr. JAMES. Well, let me put it this way. I think that together the 

library community and the GPO have come a long way in the last 

3 years. I began to discuss with the depositories a little over 3 

years ago what I thought was going to be required in the digital 
307 

future. And there were, I think it is fair to say, some real skeptics 

initially. 

But as we have, over the last 3 years, worked so closely together 

on taking a look at this, I think that probably it is best summed 

up by a letter I think you recently received, signed by the presidents of the five largest library associations strongly endorsing the 

direction that we are going. And I think that while we do not have 

a complete solution yet, I think we are engaged in a very positive 

way. We know we cannot please everybody. But it is our intention 

to get to the point that we have a consensus within the community 

of the best way to go forward with this. 

Senator ALLARD. So you are in the discussion process right now. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. And you have not decided exactly how you are 

going to proceed from this point. 

Mr. JAMES. That is absolutely correct. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. That is all I need for your testimony. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. We wish you well. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you. 

(309) 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD B. MARRON, ACTING DIRECTOR 

Senator ALLARD. Good morning, Dr. Marron. We meet again 

today. It seems like we have been seeing each other on a fairly regular basis here. You are the last panel for this morning. I would 

ask that you, Dr. Marron, Acting Director of CBO, to present your 

testimony on CBO’s $37 million request. This is a 5.5-percent increase over fiscal year 2006 and supports current services. 

Now, Dr. Marron, we understand you have done an excellent job 

heading up the CBO since your appointment just a few months 

ago. And we appreciate your service. Please go ahead with your 

testimony. 

Dr. MARRON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here today. You have our written statement, so I will try to be very 

brief. Let me start by thanking you for your past support of CBO’s 

budget request, most recently for the 2006 request. 

As you know, CBO’s mission is to provide the Congress with 

timely, objective, nonpartisan information about budget and economic issues. It has been my great privilege to be with the agency 

for about 6 months now and to be Acting Director since early this 

year. And just on a personal note I would like to say I am just incredibly impressed with the enthusiasm and skill and esprit de 

corps of the CBO and its people. I feel like we are doing an excellent job for the Congress. And I hope to keep that up. 

As you say, our fiscal 2007 request is for $37 million, which 

would be an increase of $1.9 million over our appropriation for 

2006. It is an increase of 5.5 percent. This is pretty much a plain 

vanilla request on our part. There are no new initiatives. We view 

it as a current services budget. It allows us to maintain a level of 

productivity, allows us to maintain our 235 FTEs, and hopefully allows us to, you know, continue the productivity that we have built 

up in recent years. Hopefully, it is well documented in our submission. 

Our budget is overwhelmingly for people. As we discussed the 

other day, about 90 percent of the budget goes toward our people. 

And in essence, that is what is driving our budget request this 

year. Most of the request is concentrated in people, both because 

of benefit increases, because of a cost of living adjustment (COLA), 

and because of merit increases that we would expect to award to 

people. 

In addition, there is a component in there for IT. As you will recall, last year there was an across-the-board rescission. We, to get 

through this year, focused most of that on our IT budget. We deferred a variety of projects. And so our budget request in essence 

has a variety of those investments coming back in 2007 being funded. 
310 

I am happy to say that I believe CBO provides good value to the 

Congress and through the Congress to the American people. It has 

been true in the past, and we intend to make sure it is true in the 

future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

And with that, happy to take any questions. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you, Dr. Marron. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD B. MARRON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to present the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 

CBO is a small legislative support agency. Its 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 90 percent of CBO’s appropriation is devoted to personnel, and the remaining 10 percent, to information 

technology, equipment, supplies, and other small purchases. The total current-services request for fiscal year 2007 is $37,026,000 a $1.9 million, or 5.5 percent, increase over the appropriation for fiscal year 2006 (after the 

1 percent rescission). Although CBO’s original projected increase from fiscal year 

2006 to fiscal year 2007 was 4.4 percent, this request incorporates CBO’s need to 

restore resources that were eliminated in fiscal year 2006 by the rescission. The requested increase is dominated by $1.7 million for increases in staff salaries 

and benefits, which are estimated to grow by 5.3 percent in 2007. CBO’s information 

technology accounts will increase by $220,000, or 15.6 percent, primarily to restore 

information technology funding that was reduced to meet the fiscal year 2006 rescission. The remainder of CBO’s nonpersonnel budget will increase by 1.7 percent to 

cover modest inflationary increases in various accounts. 

With the requested funds for 2007, CBO plans to continue to support the Congress in exercising its responsibilities for the budget of the U.S. government. CBO 

supports the Congressional budget process by providing analyses required by law or 

requested by the Committees on the Budget, the Committees on Appropriations, the 

Senate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, other 

committees, and 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, including the construction of baseline budget 

projections to serve as neutral benchmarks for gauging the effects of spending 

and revenue proposals; 

—Estimates the effects of the President’s budgetary proposals on outlays and revenues, including effects resulting from impacts on macroeconomic activity; 

—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 budget options; 

—Reports on programs and activities for which authorizations for appropriations 

were not enacted or are scheduled to expire; 

—Estimates the costs of legislative proposals, including formal cost estimates for 

bills reported by committees of the House and Senate, which also identify the 

costs of mandates on states, localities, Indian Tribes, and the private sector; 

—Conducts policy studies of governmental activities having major economic and 

budgetary impacts; 

—Provides the Congress with analyses of policy options, but not policy recommendations, to alter federal outlays and receipts in the near term and over 

the longer horizon to help the Congress make budgetary choices, set priorities, 

and adapt to changes in circumstances; 

—Constructs statistical, behavioral, and computational models to project shortand long-term costs and revenues of government programs and their effects on 

the economy; and 

—Reports on emerging economic developments (such as natural disasters) and 

their possible budgetary consequences. 

In fiscal year 2007, CBO’s request will allow the agency to build on current efforts 

specifically, the request: 

—Supports a workload of more than 1,700 formal estimates of the costs of proposed or enacted legislation and of mandates included in legislation (generally 
311 

conveyed in about 600 separate documents) and approximately 160 analytical 

reports and other products, as well as a heavy schedule of Congressional testimony; 

—Supports 235 FTEs, the same number as in 2006, including an across-the-board pay adjustment of 2.7 percent for staff earning a salary of less than $100,000 

(which is consistent with the pay adjustment requested by other legislative 

branch agencies); 

—Funds a projected 5.4 percent increase in the cost of benefits and funds a combination of promotions and merit increases, including pay adjustments for staff 

whose salary exceeds $100,000 and who therefore do not receive an automatic 

annual increase; 

—Supports CBO’s share of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) budget requirement ($443,025); —Sustains management and professional training and development ($152,400); 

—Maintains and continues development of CBO’s financial management system ($101,390); 

—Supports the agency’s telecommunications services to the Alternate Computing Facility ($75,000); and —Allows for upgrading Microsoft Office software throughout the agency ($75,000). 

Before I close, I would like to point out that over the past two fiscal years, CBO 

has streamlined operations while increasing services to the Congress and meeting 

ever growing requirements. Those efforts, which have included working in cooperation with other legislative branch agencies and other government organizations, 

have focused on reducing costs in information technology; library operations; printing and reproduction; storage services; and financial management, including payroll 

processing, auditing, and reporting. Consequently, the fiscal year 2007 submission 

requests the funding required for CBO to maintain its current services. 

I would also like to report that CBO received a clean opinion on its fiscal year 

2004 financial statements. 

In addition, I would like to state that the agency is committed to applying many 

principles of the Government Performance Results Act as discussed in the Senate’s 

fiscal year 2006 report. 

Finally, I would like to thank the Committee for its support of CBO’s 2006 budget 

request. The funding provided this year will allow CBO to continue to provide the 

Congress with vital analyses as well as enable the agency to make cost-effective investments to enhance productivity and reduce costs. 

PREPARATION OF REPORTS TO CONGRESS

Senator ALLARD. Now, in the past 2 years, CBO has increased 

the number and reduced the preparation time of reports for the 

Congress. That is admirable. Would you explain to the subcommittee how you managed to accomplish that? 

Dr. MARRON. Absolutely. I would say the key to that really is 

good management, to establishing timelines, deadlines, and encouraging folks to meet those. There are always some slippages, but, 

you know, to have guideposts for people to strive for, and then also 

to have a culture in which we make a lot of effort up front to make 

sure that the projects that we choose to undertake are ones that 

we can get through the entire process to see the light of day, to 

make sure that we have requests whenever possible from Members 

of Congress, and then just to carry that forward. 

So, I would ascribe that essentially to good management. 

ONE PERCENT RESCISSION

Senator ALLARD. Now in fiscal year 2006, a 1-percent rescission 

was applied to all the agencies. The one exception would have been 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. What was the impact of that 

reduction on your activities? 

Dr. MARRON. The primary impact on us was to defer a variety 

of information technology investments, upgrading servers, upgrading PCs. Some of those have some flexibility in the timing of those. 
312 

And we decided to put them out of this year and push them into 

next year. 

Senator ALLARD. And that is reflected in this year’s budget? 

Dr. MARRON. Exactly right. You will see that there is a larger 

percentage increase in the IT budget, somewhere in the 11-percent 

range—and a significant part of that increase is essentially those 

investments showing up in 2007. 

BUDGETARY ANALYSIS OF DRAFT LEGISLATION

Senator ALLARD. I see. Now I understand CBO has had a draft 

of Senator Lott’s legislation to redevelop the Government Printing 

Office facility since December. We had a discussion about that in 

the panel before you. As I understand it, until the bill is scored, 

Senator Lott is reluctant to move forward. What is the status of 

your efforts to provide a budgetary analysis of this draft legislation 

to the Rules Committee? 

Dr. MARRON. Our people are definitely working on it. The proposal raises some challenging issues which raise some nuance scoring issues, but we are working to expedite and it should be available quite soon. 

Senator ALLARD. I would urge you move ahead with that. Is it 

possible for you to give us a commitment on a date? 

Dr. MARRON. I cannot right now, but let me check with my folks 

back in the office, and I will get back to you. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I think it is important for us to get the 

Government Printing Office issue settled as fast as we possibly can. 

If you can get that to us quickly, we would all appreciate it. 

Dr. MARRON. Okay. Absolutely. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator ALLARD. Very good. I do not have any other questions. 

You got off kind of easy. 

Dr. MARRON. So I will thank you for that. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony. 

And this subcommittee stands in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, 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 ......................................................... 75, 167, 199, 223, 269 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 45, 261 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 1 

Ayers, Stephen, Chief Operating Officer, Architect of the Capitol ...................... 141 

Billington, James H., Librarian of Congress; Chairman of the Board, Open 

World Leadership Program, Library of Congress .............................................. 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 4 

Brown, Beth Hughes, Budget and Finance Officer, Office of Compliance .......... 269 

Candelaria, Alma, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Compliance ................. 269 

Chrisler, Tamara E., Acting Executive Director, Office of Compliance .............. 269 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 271 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 269 

Cylke, Kurt, Director, Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 1 

Doby, Chris, Financial Clerk, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Senate .................... 75 

Dodaro, Gene L., Chief Operating Officer, Government Accountability Office .. 223 

Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 142 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 50, 263 

Eveleth, Peter, General Counsel, Office of Compliance ........................................ 269 

Hantman, Alan M., FAIA, Architect of the Capitol................................. 141, 199, 217 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 146 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 143 

Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Administrative Officer, Government Accountability 

Office ..................................................................................................................... 223

Huff, Julia, Chief of Operations, Copyright Office, Library of Congress ............ 1 

James, Bruce R., Public Printer, Government Printing Office ............................ 295 

Opening Remarks of ......................................................................................... 295 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 298 

Jones, Mary Suit, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. Senate ........................................................................................................... 75 

Livingood, Hon. Wilson, Chairman, Capitol Police Board and Capitol Guide 

Service, Capitol Guide Board.......................................................................... 199, 217 

Prepared Statements of ............................................................................... 200, 218 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 199 

Marron, Dr. Donald B., Acting Director, Congressional Budget Office ............... 309 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 310 

McGaffin, Chris, Acting Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police Board .................... 199 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 201 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 201 

Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service, Library of 

Congress ................................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 25 
Page

ii 

Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress, Prepared 

Statement of ......................................................................................................... 14 

Pickle, Hon. William H., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate ............................................................................................................ 167, 199, 217 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 170 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 168 

Reynolds, Emily, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Senate .......................................................................................................................... 75 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 78 

Robfogel, Susan, Chairwoman, Board of Directors, Office of Compliance .......... 269 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 275 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 275 

Schornagel, Karl, Inspector General, Library of Congress ................................... 1 

Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress ................ 1 

Shedd, Steve, Chief Financial Officer, Government Printing Office ................... 295 

Stevens, Tom, Director of Visitor Services, Capitol Guide Board ........................ 217 

Strader, George G., Controller, Government Accountability Office ..................... 223 

Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States, Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 223 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 233 

Wash, Mike, Chief Technical Officer, Government Printing Office ..................... 295 

Weiss, Mark, Director, Capitol Power Plant, Architect of the Capitol ................ 141 
(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

Page 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Accomplishments ..................................................................................................... 151 

Annual Operating Budget ....................................................................................... 149 

Architect of the Capitol Chief Financial Officer Selection ................................... 164 

Capital Projects: 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 148 

And the Library Logistics Warehouse Prioritization ..................................... 159 

Capitol Visitor Center Budget ................................................................................ 150 

Construction Overhead Costs ................................................................................. 161 

Contract Management Improvements .................................................................... 164 

Dirksen Infrastructure Improvement Project ........................................................ 160 

Employee Safety in the Tunnels ............................................................................. 158 

Fiscal Year 2007 Budget: 

Concerns ............................................................................................................ 141 

Increase ............................................................................................................. 154 

Government Accountability Office Reports on Power Plant Staffing .................. 163 

Internal Controls Implementation ......................................................................... 164 

Office of Compliance Complaint ............................................................................. 157 

Overall Planning Process ........................................................................................ 147 

Performance-based Budget ..................................................................................... 163 

Safety Hazards in the Utility Tunnels ................................................................... 141 

Senate Office Building Improvements ................................................................... 150 

Stewardship and Prioritizing Projects ................................................................... 146 

Tracking Office of Compliance Citations ............................................................... 159 

Tunnel Repair Plans ................................................................................................ 159 

Utility Tunnel Conditions ....................................................................................... 155 

Welcoming Remarks ................................................................................................ 141 

West Refrigeration Plant Project ............................................................................ 162 

Challenges ......................................................................................................... 162 

CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD 

Budget Request ........................................................................................................ 218 

Capitol Visitor Center Opening .............................................................................. 219 

Certificate of Occupancy .......................................................................................... 221 

Full-time Equivalents .............................................................................................. 220 

Hiring for the Capitol Visitor Center ..................................................................... 220 

Primary Function ..................................................................................................... 217 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Budgetary Analysis of Draft Legislation ............................................................... 312 

One Percent Rescission ........................................................................................... 311 

Preparation of Reports to Congress ....................................................................... 311 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 260 

Background on Missile Defense Article ................................................................. 225 

Band II Restructuring ............................................................................................. 253 

Calculating the Total Employee Cost to the Government .................................... 250 

Changes to the Government Accountability Office’s Pay System in the Past 

Year ....................................................................................................................... 252
Page

iv 

Comparative Analysis of the Government Accountability Office’s Supply-Demand Imbalance ................................................................................................... 257 

Cost for 50 Additional Full-time Equivalents ....................................................... 249 

Criteria for Coming On and Off the Government Accountability Office’s High 

Risk List ................................................................................................................ 260 

Early Retirements ................................................................................................... 251 

Employee Perception of New Pay System ............................................................. 254 

Ensuring the Government Accountability Office Reports are Impartial ............ 228 

Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s): 

Fiscal Year 2005 Accomplishments ................................................................. 231 

Fiscal Year 2007: 

Budget Request ......................................................................................... 232 

Request to Support the Congress ............................................................. 235 

High Risk: 

List .............................................................................................................. 258 

Program ...................................................................................................... 247 

Market-based Pay System ............................................................................... 252 

Policy on Engagements Pending Litigation .................................................... 227 

Quality Control Procedures ............................................................................. 227 

History and Importance of the Government Accountability Office’s High Risk 

List ........................................................................................................................ 259 

Lessons Learned: 

From Missile Defense Engagement ................................................................. 225 

In Implementing Market-based Pay ............................................................... 256 

Mr. Walker’s Response to the New York Times Article ....................................... 224 

New York Times Article on Missile Defense Program ......................................... 223 

Outcomes of Our Work and the Road Ahead ........................................................ 238 

Performance, Results, and Plans ............................................................................ 236 

Potential for Government-wide Use of Market-based Pay ................................... 255 

Prior Discussions With the Congress on Missile Defense .................................... 226 

Staffing up to Reduce Backlogs .............................................................................. 256 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Budget Priorities ...................................................................................................... 302 

Congressional Printing and Binding ...................................................................... 302 

Electronic Passport Program .................................................................................. 305 

Employee Retraining ............................................................................................... 305 

Facility Relocation ................................................................................................... 301 

Fiscal Year 2007 Request ........................................................................................ 300 

Future of the Depository Library Program ........................................................... 306 

GPO Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Priorities .................................................. 302 

Revolving Fund ........................................................................................................ 304 

Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................. 303 

Top challenges .......................................................................................................... 302 

2005 Results ............................................................................................................. 298 

Use of GPO Training Funds ................................................................................... 305 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Acquisitions Budget Request .................................................................................. 3 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 45 

Analog-Digital Transition ....................................................................................... 40 

Architect of the Capitol—Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds .............. 8 

Building the Library for the Future ....................................................................... 6 

Capitol Visitor Center ............................................................................................. 41 

Cassette Machine Replacement .............................................................................. 39 

Celebration of American Creativity ....................................................................... 42 

Congressional Research Service Realignment ...................................................... 23, 48 

Savings .............................................................................................................. 28 

Consultation With Congressional Research Service Staff .................................... 29 

Copyright: 

Deposits Facility ............................................................................................... 21 

Records Preservation ........................................................................................ 46 

Reengineering Program ................................................................................... 31 

Digital: 

Competencies .................................................................................................... 47 

Talking Books: 

Audit ........................................................................................................... 41 
Page

v 

Digital—Continued 

Talking Books—Continued 

Program ...................................................................................................... 38 

Director’s Report—Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing Changes, November 3, 2005 ....... 56 

Federal Agency Overhead ....................................................................................... 21 

Fee Service Activities .............................................................................................. 49 

Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request .......................................................................... 18, 25 

Future Fee Increase ................................................................................................ 19 

GENPAC ................................................................................................................... 45 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) .............................................. 20 

And Library Planning ...................................................................................... 21 

Impact of Retirements ............................................................................................. 31 

Introduction of Inspector General .......................................................................... 22 

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 4 

Logistics Center ....................................................................................................... 4 

Cost .................................................................................................................... 19 

Review............................................................................................................... 20, 22 

Management Initiatives .......................................................................................... 26 

National Audio-Visual Conservation Center—Culpeper ...................................... 3 

Status ................................................................................................................ 32 

National Audio-Visual Conservation Center—Packard Contribution ................. 33 

Open World Leadership Center .............................................................................. 9 

Open World Leadership Program ........................................................................... 44 

Open World Strategic Plan ..................................................................................... 44 

Options for Displaced Employees ........................................................................... 29 

Other Budget Priorities ........................................................................................... 3 

Partnerships With National Libraries ................................................................... 43 

Performance Measurement ..................................................................................... 34 

Proposed Changes to Legislative Language .......................................................... 8 

Reengineering Project Delays ................................................................................. 32 

Research Agenda ..................................................................................................... 25 

Results-based Decisionmaking ............................................................................... 37 

Retirement Incentives ............................................................................................. 29 

Review of Copyright Office Work and Accomplishments ..................................... 14 

Technology and Staffing .......................................................................................... 24 

The Library of Congress of Today .......................................................................... 5 

The Library’s: 

Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request ................................................................... 6 

Funding Priorities ............................................................................................ 6 

Workforce Transformation................................................................................. 2, 30, 46 

World Digital Library .............................................................................................. 43 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

Air Sampling ............................................................................................................ 289 

Architect of the Capitol Plan to Remedy Tunnel Issues ....................................... 282 

Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults as of May 2, 2006 ............................ 284 

Biennial Safety and Health Inspections ................................................................ 277 

Complaint Against Architect of the Capitol About the Tunnels .......................... 281 

Dispute Resolution ................................................................................................... 272 

Distance Between Egress Points ............................................................................ 290 

Educating our Constituency .................................................................................... 273 

Findings by Risk Assessment Code ........................................................................ 277 

Fire Alarm System in the Capitol Visitor Center ................................................. 292 

First Office of Compliance Complaint Under the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act ............................................................................................................. 278 

Management Support .............................................................................................. 273 

New FTE Positions Requested ................................................................................ 270 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Approved Methods for Abating Asbestos .......................................................................................................... 288 

Safety and Health Enforcement ............................................................................. 272 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD 

Accolade: 

For U.S. Capitol Police Department ............................................................... 204 

To Departing Chief Gainer .............................................................................. 200 

Capitol Police General Counsel Discussion ........................................................... 208 
Page

vi 

Chief Administrative Officer: 

Action Plan ........................................................................................................ 210 

Responsibilities ................................................................................................. 209 

Discussion on: 

Comp Time Balance Reduction ....................................................................... 207 

New Police Chief Selection Status .................................................................. 213 

Explanation of Fiscal Year 2007 Increases ........................................................... 204 

Implementation of New Financial Management System ..................................... 211 

Inspector General Selection Status ........................................................................ 214 

Library of Congress: 

Attrition and Other New Position Requests ................................................... 205 

Merge Progress ................................................................................................. 207 

Master Training Plan—Capitol Police ................................................................... 214 

Nonpersonnel Increases .......................................................................................... 205 

Reduction in Police Overtime Explained ............................................................... 206 

Screening Vehicles at Library of Congress ............................................................ 208 

Summary of Remaining Chief Administrative Officer Initiatives ....................... 211 

Tiger Team and Dignitary Protection Division New Positions Discussed .......... 206 

U.S. SENATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Administrative Offices ............................................................................................. 105 

Capitol Visitor Center ............................................................................................. 81 

Continuity of Operations and Emergency Preparedness Planning ..................... 81 

Disbursing Office Information Technology ............................................................ 99 

Federal Election Commission Online Filing .......................................................... 140 

Financial Operations: Disbursing Office ................................................................ 90 

Implementing Mandated Systems .......................................................................... 79 

Legislative Offices .................................................................................................... 82 

Lobbying Disclosure Reports .................................................................................. 138 

Maintaining and Improving Current and Historic Legislative, Financial and 

Administrative Services ....................................................................................... 82 

New Technology in the Senate ............................................................................... 138 

Presenting the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request ................................................. 79 

Study of Senate Staff Pay ....................................................................................... 139 

SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

Challenges for Next Year ........................................................................................ 181 

Custodial Workers for the Senate Capitol Visitor Center Expansion Space ...... 195 

Guiding Principals ................................................................................................... 169 

Information Technology: A Strategy for Security and Customer Service ........... 175 

Mail: 

Processing Facility ............................................................................................ 197 

Safety ................................................................................................................. 188 

Operations and Support: Consistently Delivering Excellent Service .................. 180 

Security and Emergency Preparedness ................................................................. 196 

Security and Preparedness: Protecting the Senate and Planning for the Unknown .................................................................................................................... 173 

Sergeant at Arms Position Justification—Fiscal Year 2007 ................................ 189 

Staffing Increases................................................................................................ 188, 194 

Strategic: 

Plan .................................................................................................................... 169 

Planning ............................................................................................................ 198 

Telephone System Replacement ............................................................................. 196 

Vendor Deliveries .................................................................................................... 197 

Æ