U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

93–127 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–177 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2250 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2016, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

Architect of the Capitol 

Congressional Budget Office 

Government Accountability Office 

Government Publishing Office 

Library of Congress 

Nondepartmental Witnesses 

Office of Compliance 

United States Capitol Police 

U.S. Senate Office of the Secretary 

U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Vice 

Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRIS MURPHY, Connecticut 

BRUCE EVANS, Staff Director 

CHARLES E. KIEFFER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairwoman 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, (ex officio) 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Ranking Member 

CHRIS MURPHY, Connecticut 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, 

(ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

RACHELLE SCHROEDER

COURTNEY STEVENS

MELISSA ZIMMERMAN (Minority) 

JEAN KWON (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

HEARINGS

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015 Page 

Congressional Budget Office ................................................................................... 1 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 9 

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2015 

United States Capitol Police ................................................................................... 72 

U.S. Senate: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 39 

Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper .................................................................. 59 

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 125 

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 95 

BACK MATTER

Departmental Witnesses: 

Government Publishing Office ......................................................................... 151 

Office of Compliance ......................................................................................... 160 

List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements .......................... 171 

Nondepartmental Witnesses ................................................................................... 162 

Subject Index: 

Architect of the Capitol .................................................................................... 173 

Congressional Budget Office ............................................................................ 173 

Government Accountability Office .................................................................. 173 

Government Publishing Office ......................................................................... 175 

Library of Congress .......................................................................................... 175 

Office of Compliance ......................................................................................... 176 

United States Capitol Police ............................................................................ 176 

U.S. Senate: 

Office of the Secretary .............................................................................. 177 

Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper .......................................................... 178 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015 

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

The subcommittee met at 3:04 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Capito, Schatz, and Murphy. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF DR. DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, PH.D., DIRECTOR 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

Senator CAPITO. Good afternoon, everybody. The subcommittee 

will come to order. I would like to welcome everyone to the first of 

our fiscal year 2016 budget hearings for the variety of agencies 

under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Subcommittee. 

I would like to welcome my ranking member. This is our first 

run at this show, and I think I speak for myself and for the Senator, that we are excited about having this responsibility. 

We are going to begin today with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Dr. Douglas Elmendorf, and the head 

of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Mr. Gene Dodaro. 

I appreciate the willingness of the witnesses to appear before the 

subcommittee today. 

I would like to start by thanking Dr. Elmendorf for his 6 years 

of service as the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. As we 

talked just briefly, I know you are going to be welcoming a breath 

of fresh air in your life, a time to reflect and figure what you want 

to do for the rest of your life, but you have been a stellar public 

servant. 

Your tenure has assured that the CBO provided this committee 

with objective, non-partisan information that is necessary for us to 

do our job, and I speak for the rest of Congress as well. 

We appreciate the manner in which you have approached this 

with the very, very difficult task that you have had. We wish you 

well. 

As many of you already know, on February 27, the Speaker of 

the House, John Boehner, and the President Pro Tempore, Orrin 

Hatch, jointly appointed Dr. Keith Hall to be the next Director of 
2 

the Congressional Budget Office, after consideration of the recommendation made to leadership by the chairmen of the House 

and Senate Budget Committees. 

Dr. Hall’s term will begin on April 1. Maybe he should start on 

April 2. It will expire on January 3, 2019, in accordance with the 

guidelines set forth in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 

Control Act of 1974. 

The total Congressional Budget Office request is $47.27 million, 

a $1.57 million or 3.4 percent increase over the 2015 enacted level. 

This funding request supports the current full-time equivalent 

(FTE) level of 235 plus an additional three FTEs necessary for 

health related work and developing a specific structure within the 

existing Macroeconomic Division, in order to comply with the new 

House rule requirement. 

The total GAO request for fiscal year 2016 is $553.1 million, a 

$31.1 million or 6 percent increase above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This funding request supports an increase in FTEs 

from 3,015 to 3,055, which would continue progress on GAO’s 

multi-year plan to achieve an optimal level of 3,250 FTEs. 

I look forward to exploring these needs with you and the other 

members of the subcommittee today and over the next several 

months as we move forward through this fiscal year 2016 process. 

Again, I would like to thank you, and I would like to turn it over 

to the ranking member, Senator Schatz, for any opening remarks 

he might have. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chair Capito. It is an honor to serve 

on the Senate Appropriations Committee and especially to be serving as your ranking member. I look forward to working with you 

on this subcommittee, and we are fortunate to have you and your 

14 years of experience in the Federal legislative context. 

I am anxious today to get started on our work together examining the budgets of agencies funded in this bill and making sure 

that the taxpayers’ money is being spent wisely. 

I would like to welcome Director Elmendorf and Comptroller 

General Dodaro to this hearing. CBO and GAO play a vital role in 

supporting the Congress’ legislative and oversight responsibilities 

by providing objective and authoritative information to the Congress. CBO and GAO ensure that policy and funding debates are 

based on sound factual and independent information. 

Recent policy and funding decisions are being considered within 

a challenging fiscal climate, making CBO’s cost estimates, budget 

projections, and economic forecasts especially important. 

Within GAO, one key component of their work is the agency’s 

high risk list published at the start of each new Congress to identify areas at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. 

The high risk list provides Congress and the committee a clear and 

informed set of oversight priorities. 

I look forward to working with our two agencies today and 

throughout the year to ensure that both have the resources needed 

to fulfill your responsibilities. 
3 

I am also interested in learning how your agencies may have to 

adjust their operations if current Budget Control Act (BCA) spending caps remain in place. 

Dr. Elmendorf, after 6 years, you will soon finish your service as 

CBO Director. I understand CBO has produced more than 3,000 

written cost estimates under your leadership, and that this is your 

50th and perhaps last congressional hearing. 

I want to thank you for your service to Congress and wish you 

the best in your future endeavors. 

Thank you, Chair Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Now, I would like to ask the witnesses, beginning with Dr. Elmendorf, to give a brief opening statement of approximately five minutes. The written testimony of each 

witness will be printed in full in the hearing record. Dr. Elmendorf. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF

Dr. ELMENDORF. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Ranking 

Member Schatz, for your kind words. I appreciate the opportunity 

to present CBO’s budget request for fiscal year 2016. We are asking for appropriations of $47.3 million, which will be an increase of $1.6 million or 3.4 percent from the $45.7 million 

provided to CBO for 2015. About one-quarter of our requested increase, roughly $440,000, 

would fund three additional full-time equivalent positions. We aim 

to boost our staffing from the 235 FTEs contemplated for this year 

to 238 next year. 

The additional FTEs would be devoted, as the chair said, to analyze the economic effects of Federal tax and spending policies, including conducting so-called ‘‘dynamic analysis’’ of certain legislation under the new House rule, and probably on occasion for the 

Senate as well, and to analyze healthcare issues. The remaining $1.1 million of the increase, about 2.4 percent, 

will be devoted to our ongoing operations. That figure is the net increase of an increase of $1.7 million in pay and benefits, and a decrease of about $550,000 in non-pay expenditures. 

The proposed increase in pay and benefits reflects small increases in average pay and rising costs of benefits, including a 

marked increase in contribution rates for the Federal Employees 

Retirement System that took effect this year but was not anticipated in our budget request for this year. We are meeting this 

year’s costs within our appropriations because the pay of some new 

employees has turned out to be less than we anticipated. 

We continue to face considerable competitive pressure in attracting and retaining the highly educated and skilled employees that 

we and the Congress need. Talented economists and budget analysts are highly sought by other Government agencies, private analytic organizations, and private companies. 

Indeed, the gap between the compensation that CBO can provide 

and the compensation that people with such backgrounds can receive elsewhere is increasing. 

The decrease in non-pay expenditures in our request is mostly 

related to information technology, and it is possible because funding provided last year and this year allowed us to catch up on IT 

purchases that had been deferred from previous years. 
4 

In various other areas, we expect to contain non-pay costs so it 

will be less than or equal to this year’s expenditures, despite rising 

prices. 

Our goal with this funding request is to continue to provide the 

Congress with a timely, carefully thought out, non-partisan budgetary and economic analysis that you and your colleagues expect 

from us. 

As you know, our work encompasses a wide array of subjects and 

appears in many different forms. We write reports on the outlook 

for the budget and the economy, long term budget outlook, and options for reducing budget deficits. 

We issue more than 500 formal cost estimates in a year and provide thousands of preliminary informal estimates as committees 

seek to have a clear picture of the budgetary impact of proposals 

before they formally consider legislation. 

We release more than 100 scorekeeping tabulations each year, 

including account level detail for individual appropriation acts at 

all stages of the legislative process. 

We publish roughly 85 analytical reports and other publications 

each year, generally as required by law, or in response to requests 

from the chairman and ranking members of key committees. 

A common thread running through all of that work is that the 

demand from you and your colleagues exceeds the quantity that 

the 235 of us at CBO can supply. The enactment of major 

healthcare legislation in 2010 has been followed as you know by a 

high level of congressional interest in analysis of that legislation 

and numerous proposals for further changes in Federal healthcare 

programs. 

In addition, the slow recovery of an economic down turn has 

spurred interest in our economic forecasts, and in policies that 

might boost economic growth and opportunity in both the near 

term and the longer term. 

Moreover, the surge in Federal debt and the high level of projected deficits over the long term have led to ongoing consideration 

of fundamental changes in spending and tax policies, from changes 

in benefit programs to defense policy, infrastructure, energy policy, 

and much more. 

Despite the very hard work of CBO’s highly dedicated staff, we 

simply cannot keep up with the volume of requested estimates and 

other analyses. Of course, we regularly consult with the leadership 

of the key committees of the House and the Senate as a whole to 

ensure that our limited resources are focused on the work that is 

of highest priority to the Congress. 

Even so, if we have to reduce our staffing below the current level, 

the mismatch between the demand for and the supply of our work 

would become even more acute. 

I want to close by thanking this committee for the support it has 

supported CBO over many years. I have had the extraordinary 

privilege to lead a terrific organization and work with its very talented people for the past 6 years. I know CBO will continue to provide the Congress with careful objective analysis as you and your 

colleagues grapple with the many challenges the Nation faces. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 
5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to present the Congressional Budget Office’s budget 

request. CBO requests appropriations of $47.3 million for fiscal year 2016. That 

amount represents an increase of $1.6 million, or 3.4 percent, from the $45.7 million 

provided to CBO for 2015. 

About one-quarter of the requested increase, roughly $440,000, would fund three 

new full-time-equivalent positions (FTEs): The agency aims to boost its staffing from 

the 235 FTEs contemplated in the 2015 appropriation to 238 for 2016. The additional FTEs would be devoted to analyzing the economic effects of Federal tax and 

spending policies (including conducting ‘‘dynamic analysis’’ of certain legislation pursuant to a new House rule) and healthcare issues. 

The remaining $1.1 million increase (about 2.4 percent) would be devoted to ongoing operations—the result of an increase of nearly $1.7 million in pay and benefits, 

which would be partly offset by a decrease of about $550,000 in nonpay expenditures. The proposed increase in pay and benefits reflects small increases in average 

pay and rising costs of benefits, including a marked increase in contribution rates 

for the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) that took effect in 2015 but 

was not anticipated in CBO’s 2015 budget request. The decrease in nonpay expenditures, mostly related to information technology (IT), is possible because funding provided in 2014 and 2015 allowed CBO to catch up on IT purchases deferred from previous years. In various other areas, CBO expects to contain nonpay costs so they 

will be less than or equal to this year’s expenditures, despite rising prices. 

Of the requested funding for 2016, 91 percent would support pay and benefits, 6 

percent would be for IT, and 3 percent would go toward purchases of data, training, 

office supplies, and other items. 

CBO’S FUNDING HISTORY AND ITS EFFECTS ON STAFFING AND OUTPUT

Because such a large share of CBO’s budget represents compensation, the contours of the agency’s budget and staffing levels have been and will continue to be 

closely linked. 

Between fiscal years 2002 and 2008, the number of authorized FTEs at CBO held 

between 232 and 235 (see Figure 1). During that period, CBO’s budget generally 

rose slowly, as Federal employees received salary increases and the cost of Federal 

benefits increased. For fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the Congress approved larger increases in CBO’s budget to support a step-up in staffing. That step-up was intended 

primarily to increase the agency’s ability to analyze potential changes in Federal 

healthcare policy while maintaining its capacity to provide cost estimates and reports on other topics. CBO had sufficient funding for 254 FTEs in 2010. 

The increase in staffing enabled CBO to engage in analyses of particularly complex issues and to provide substantially more estimates and other analyses to the 

Congress. Among the accomplishments that were facilitated by the larger staff were 

a significant expansion of healthcare analysis, substantial enhancement of financial 

analysis, considerable improvement in modeling the economic effects of Federal tax 

and spending policies, issuance of several reports with options for changing Federal 

benefit programs, significant gains in the transparency of CBO’s analysis, and continued high quality of the agency’s cost estimates and analyses of numerous other 

topics. 

However, constraints on CBO’s funding (following from constraints on discretionary appropriations as a whole) caused the agency’s staffing to shrink in fiscal 

years 2011 through 2013. The agency’s appropriation for 2013 was well below the 

amounts provided to the agency during the preceding years (see Figure 2). Those 

cuts, combined with small increases in average pay and rising costs of benefits and 

other items during those years, required a drop in the number of FTEs to only 225 

in 2013, the lowest level in more than a dozen years. In addition, the agency had 

to defer critical purchases of IT equipment and services and other items. 
6 
7 

CBO’s appropriation for 2014 was significantly larger than its appropriation for 

2013, and the appropriation for 2015 equaled the amount provided in 2014. Accordingly, the agency sharply increased its recruiting efforts in order to return its staffing to the traditional level of 235 FTEs as quickly as possible and to catch up on 

deferred IT purchases. As a result, staffing now stands at 234 FTEs, and the number is expected to be slightly higher by the end of this fiscal year. 

CBO’S FUNDING REQUEST AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR STAFFING AND OUTPUT

In fiscal year 2016, CBO will continue its mission of providing objective, insightful, timely, and clearly presented budgetary and economic information to the Congress. To fulfill that mission, CBO requests $47.3 million in funding—an increase 

of $1,570,000 from the $45.7 million provided for 2015. The requested amount of 

funding would allow CBO to provide the following estimates and other analyses to 

the Congress: 

—Reports presenting the outlook for the budget and the economy, analyses of the 

President’s budget, long-term budget projections, and options for reducing budget deficits; 

—More than 500 formal cost estimates, most of which will include not only estimates of Federal costs but also assessments of the cost of mandates imposed 

on State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector; 

—Thousands of preliminary, informal cost estimates, the demand for which is 

very high as committees seek to have a clear picture of the budgetary impact 

of proposals and variants of proposals before they formally consider legislation; 

—About 120 scorekeeping tabulations, including account-level detail for individual 

appropriation acts at all stages of the legislative process and summary tables 

showing the status of discretionary appropriations (by appropriations subcommittee) and running totals on a year-to-date basis; and 

—Roughly 85 analytical reports and other publications—generally required by law 

or prepared in response to requests from the Chairmen and Ranking Members 

of key committees—on a broad range of topics, including healthcare, policies for 

increasing economic growth and opportunity, changes in benefit programs, defense policy, infrastructure, energy policy, and the Government’s role in the financial system. 

Those products would be the result of very hard work by CBO’s highly dedicated 

staff. Nevertheless, the agency expects that the anticipated volume of estimates and 

other analyses will fall considerably short of the number of Congressional requests. 

The demands on CBO remain intense: The enactment of major healthcare legislation in 2010 has been followed by a high level of congressional interest in analysis 

of that legislation and numerous proposals for further changes in Federal healthcare 

programs. In addition, the slow recovery from the economic downturn has spurred 

interest in the agency’s economic forecasts and in policies that might boost economic 

growth and opportunity in both the near term and the longer term. Moreover, the 

surge in Federal debt and the high level of projected deficits have led to ongoing 

congressional efforts to enact fundamental changes in spending and tax policies. 

Analyzing the possibilities and proposals has strained the agency’s resources in 

many areas. CBO regularly consults with committees and congressional leadership 

to ensure that its limited resources are focused on the work that is of highest priority to the Congress. 

The requested funds would be used as follows: 

—$32.1 million for pay of personnel—an increase of $1.6 million (5 percent) over 

the amount that will be spent in fiscal year 2015. The increase would cover $0.3 

million in pay for the additional FTEs, as well as performance-based salary increases for current staff and an across-the-board increase of 2.2 percent for employees making less than $100,000 (if such an increase is authorized for executive branch agencies). 

—$11.1 million for benefits of personnel—an increase of $0.5 million (5 percent) 

relative to the amount projected to be spent in 2015, to fund an increase in the 

cost of Federal benefits as well as the benefits for the added staff members. The 

increase in the FERS contribution rate (about 1.7 percentage points for most 

of the affected employees) took effect in 2015 but was not anticipated in the 

2015 budget; those costs are being met within the 2015 appropriation because 

the pay of some new employees turned out to be lower than anticipated. The 

higher FERS contribution rate accounts for about $0.5 million of the proposed 

2016 funding. 

—$4.1 million for other purposes—a decrease of $0.5 million (12 percent) from the 

amount appropriated in 2015. The funds would go toward purchases of IT, data, 

training, and other items. The decrease for 2016 is made possible primarily by 
8 

the fact that the 2014 funding allowed CBO to catch up on deferred IT purchases and to make some purchases that reduced future needs. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for the support it has provided 

CBO over many years, enabling the agency to provide timely, carefully thought-out 

nonpartisan budgetary and economic analysis to the Congress as it addresses the 

critical issues facing the Nation. 

Senator CAPITO. Comptroller General. 
(9) 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL 

Mr. DODARO. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Senator Schatz. 

I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss GAO’s budget request. 

First, I would like to add to the compliments that both of you 

have provided to Doug Elmendorf. He has been a tremendous colleague to work with over the years. I want to wish him well in his 

future endeavors. 

GAO BUDGET

With regard to GAO’s budget request, I just want to make three 

basic points. First, GAO provides an excellent return on investment 

in supporting the Congress and improving the performance and accountability of the Government. 

Second, our ability to make an impact and help the Congress is 

dependent on having a highly skilled and experienced workforce to 

carry out our responsibilities. 

Finally, we have advanced a prudent request that will enable us 

to meet the highest priority needs of the Congress and provide the 

greatest impact on achieving financial benefits. 

GAO RETURN ON INVESTMENT

First, on GAO’s return on investment. Last year as a result of 

implementing our recommendations, there were over $54 billion in 

financial benefits identified to the Congress and the country. This 

is about a $100 return for every dollar invested in GAO. There 

were also about 1,200 documented improvements in agency operations that addressed public health and safety issues or helped improve the performance and efficiency of Government programs. 

The Bipartisan Budget Act recently incorporated recommenda- tions from GAO to save over $23 billion which helped in avoiding 

the sequestration process for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2015 was replete with references 

to GAO’s work. We made contributions to numerous authorizations 

and reauthorizations on everything from defense to agriculture programs. 

We also helped advance major management reforms that the 

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act will now improve, if 

properly implemented, such as the accuracy and searchability of all 

information on Federal spending. 

Our work also led to the Federal Information Technology Reform 

Act, which will improve IT acquisitions across Government. We 

have made a number of recommendations to five different pieces of 

legislation that were passed last year, addressing the Federal Government’s response to cybersecurity issues going forward. 
10 

I think the record of investing in GAO is very clear and demonstrates that you get good results. 

GAO WORKFORCE

With regard to our workforce, 82 percent of our request is for 

people. We need highly skilled and experienced people. Right now, 

we face succession planning challenges. Like many other public 

sector and private sector organizations, our workforce is aging. 

Right now, 40 percent of our Senior Executives are eligible to retire and 20 percent of our Senior Managers are eligible to retire. 

As I look ahead to 2018, those numbers go to well over 50 percent 

of our Senior Executives and over 30 percent of our Senior Managers. 

We need to keep replenishing our pipeline. For people to make 

improvements across the breadth of the Federal Government’s operations, they need to be experienced. We need to bring them in 

and train them not only on how GAO does its work, but also train 

them to become specialists in subject areas, since we serve about 

94 percent of the full committees of the Congress, standing committees of the Congress, and 70 percent of the subcommittees. We 

need experts in many different areas across the Federal Government. 

Finally, I would mention our request this year is for a 5.9 percent increase. That would increase our number of FTE positions by 

40. We believe this is a prudent increase. As you mentioned, 

Madam Chairman, in your opening comments, the optimal level, I 

believe, for GAO is 3,250 full-time equivalent positions. I am not 

asking to get to that level as a part of this request. 

As the auditor of the Federal Government’s financial statements, 

I understand our fiscal position right now in terms of the deficit 

and debt. The 40 additional positions will enable us to tackle very 

important issues ranging from $124 billion in improper payments 

that went out last year, as well as the $385 billion tax gap. We are 

losing money that we are paying that we should not be paying, and 

not collecting as much as we should be collecting. 

We can make a big difference in those areas and other high risk 

areas across the Government. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I look 

forward to responding to your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE L. DODARO

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee: 

On behalf of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2016 budget request. I also appreciate the confidence this subcommittee has shown in GAO by supporting our efforts to serve Congress and improve Government performance, accountability, and transparency. The fiscal year 2015 funding of $522 million will allow GAO to have a staff capacity of 3,015 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. This is a positive step forward in 

rebuilding our staff capacity, which in recent years had dropped to its lowest level 

since 1935 due to funding constraints. GAO remains committed to quality, focusing 

on meeting the highest priorities of Congress, and assisting in improving Government efficiency and effectiveness. 

GAO’s fiscal year 2016 budget request of $553.1 million will support 3,055 FTEs, 

continuing progress towards achieving an optimal level of 3,250 FTEs. The requested funding also provides the resources to maintain current operations and 

make limited investments in information technology (IT) and building infrastruc-
11 

ture. Costs will be offset with $33.4 million in reimbursements, primarily from financial audits and rental income. 

GAO HIGHLIGHTS

Highlights of GAO–15–417T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Legislative 

Branch, Committee on Appropriations, Senate. 

BACKGROUND

GAO’s mission is to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the Federal Government 

for the benefit of the American people. GAO provides nonpartisan, objective, and reliable information to Congress, Federal agencies, and to the public and recommends 

improvements, when appropriate, across the full breadth and scope of the Federal 

Government’s responsibilities. 

GAO’s work supports a broad range of interests throughout Congress. In fiscal 

year 2014, GAO received requests for our work from 94 percent of the standing committees of Congress and almost 70 percent of their subcommittees. Additionally, senior GAO officials testified 129 times on a wide range of issues that touched virtually 

all major Federal agencies. 

GAO remains one of the best investments in the Federal Government, and GAO’s 

dedicated staff continues to deliver high quality results. In fiscal year 2014 alone, 

GAO’s work yielded $54.4 billion in financial benefits—a return of about $100 for 

every dollar invested in GAO. Since fiscal year 2003, GAO’s work has resulted in: —over 1⁄2 trillion dollars in financial benefits; and 

—about 15,800 program and operational benefits that helped to change laws, improve public services, and promote sound management throughout Government. 

These results are a reflection of the dedication and hard work of GAO’s staff. GAO 

has again been recognized as an employer of choice, and continues to be ranked 

near the top on ‘‘best places to work’’ lists. In December 2014 the Partnership for 

Public Service ranked GAO second among mid-size agencies as one of the best 

places to work in the Federal Government. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 PERFORMANCE BUDGET

GAO’s fiscal year 2016 budget request of $553.1 million supports 3,055 full-time 

equivalent (FTE) staff and continues progress towards achieving an optimal level of 

3,250 FTE. The request also provides the resources to maintain current operations 

and make limited investments in GAO’s information technology (IT) and building 

infrastructure. Costs will be offset with $33.4 million in reimbursements, primarily 

from financial audits and rental income. 

The Congress used GAO’s work extensively in 2014 to identify legislative solutions to emerging problems, achieve cost savings, and find efficiencies in Federal 

agencies and programs. GAO’s work helped Congress achieve some of the billions 

in savings and revenue enhancements needed to avoid sequestration in fiscal years 

2014 and 2015. In addition, GAO’s work was cited repeatedly in the Consolidated 

and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, and contributed to over a dozen 

key authorizations and reauthorizations, including, among others, the Department 

of Defense, the Coast Guard, workforce programs, and agriculture programs. GAO’s 

work also contributed to bills intended to improve veteran’s healthcare, Federal acquisitions of information technology and weapons systems, and transparency of Federal programs. In addition to the $54.4 billion in financial benefits from GAO’s work, during fiscal year 2014, we recorded over 1,200 program and operational improvements in numerous areas affecting public safety and security and the efficient and effective 

functioning of Government programs, including: 

—cybersecurity governance; 

—oversight of international food aid; 

—security of diplomatic facilities and personnel overseas; 

—sharing of terrorism-related information with Federal and non-Federal partners; 

and 

—the future of nanomanufacturing, including research and development, U.S. 

competitiveness, and environmental, health, and safety concerns. 

Workforce and succession planning also remain a priority for GAO. In fiscal year 

2015, GAO plans to achieve a staffing level of 3,015 FTEs through a targeted recruiting strategy to address critical skills gaps. This is a positive step forward in 

rebuilding staff capacity which in recent years had fallen to the lowest level since 

1935. The additional staff will help ensure GAO has the resources to assist Congress 

in improving Government performance, effectiveness, and accountability, as well as 
12 

support GAO’s commitment to service and quality. GAO’s limited investments in IT 

and building infrastructure will allow GAO to further streamline business operations, increase staff productivity, as well as improve access to information. Implementation will be done through a phased approach to reduce risk and ensure effective implementation. 

ASSISTING CONGRESS AND THE NATION

GAO provides an exceptional investment, a return of about $100 for every dollar 

invested in GAO. In fiscal year 2014, our work resulted in $54.4 billion in financial 

benefits and 1,288 program and operational improvements across the Federal Government. 

The program areas where these benefits have been realized include public safety 

and security, program efficiency and effectiveness, public insurance and benefits, acquisition and contract management, tax law administration, and business process 

and management. 

GAO is recognized for its non-partisan, first-hand, objective, fact-based, and reliable analyses across the full breadth and scope of the Federal Government’s responsibilities and the extensive interests of Congress. 

In fiscal year 2014, we responded to requests from 94 percent of the standing full 

committees of the Congress, and almost 70 percent of the standing subcommittees. 

Our analyses and testimony inform debate and decisions by providing facts and supporting documentation. We provide program and technical expertise to support Congress in overseeing the executive branch, evaluating spending priorities, and assessing information from outside parties. 

GAO remains steadfast in our financial stewardship responsibilities by providing 

high quality work identifying cost-savings and revenue enhancements as Congress 

and the administration deliberate on both the Federal Government’s immediate priorities and the Nation’s long-term fiscal path. Through sound analysis and advice, 

GAO recommends solutions across a vast array of areas to foster Government efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness on high priority challenges facing Congress 

and the Nation. In fiscal year 2014, we issued 693 reports and made 1,619 new recommendations. On average about 80 percent of GAO’s recommendations have been 

implemented over a 4 year period. 

GAO’s Work Helps Congress Avoid Sequestration 

Our findings are often cited in House and Senate deliberations and committee reports supporting congressional action, including improving Federal programs on our 

High Risk list and addressing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in Government. Congress used our work on a broad range of issues to inform its decisions 

on important legislation, which also resulted in financial and other benefits for the 

Government. 

For example, some of the key decisions adopted by Congress on the fiscal year 

2014 and 2015 budget (the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013) were linked to our work. 

Specifically, our efforts helped Congress achieve some of the billions in savings 

and revenue enhancements needed to avoid sequestration in fiscal years 2014 and 

2015, including: 

—improving the cost-effectiveness of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve resulting in estimated savings of $3.2 billion over 10 years; 

—reducing overpayments for unemployment insurance by $159 million over 10 

years by identifying fraud or failure to report earnings; 

—expanding the risk-based element of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s premium rate structure to increase revenues and offset direct spending 

by $7.9 billion over 10 years; 

—reducing improper payments to inmates for disaster relief and other assistance 

resulting in savings of $80 million over 10 years; and 

—increasing aviation security fees to cover 43 percent of aviation security costs 

in 2014, saving $12.6 billion over 10 years. 

Other contributions to mitigating the sequester related to our work included capping compensation costs for Federal contractors. 

GAO Contributes to a Wide Range of Key Appropriations and Authorization Legislation 

The Congress used GAO’s work in 2014 to identify legislative solutions to emerging problems, achieve cost savings, and find efficiencies in Federal agencies and programs. For example, GAO’s work was cited repeatedly in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (2015 Appropriations Act), and contributed to over a dozen key authorizations and reauthorizations, including for the De-
13 

partment of Defense, the Coast Guard, workforce programs, and agriculture programs. 

GAO’s work also contributed to bills intended to improve veteran’s healthcare, 

Federal acquisitions of information technology (IT) and weapons systems, and transparency of Federal programs, among others. Examples include: 

Cost savings and efficiencies 

—In the 2015 Appropriations Act, Congress rescinded funds or reduced administration proposals for weapon systems, including the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, Joint Tactical Radio System, and the Kiowa Warrior helicopter program for 

an estimated total of over $500 million. 

—To improve accountability, the Act also withheld funds from agencies, including 

the Departments of Defense and Energy, until problems identified by GAO were 

addressed. 

—The Agricultural Act of 2014 reflected billions of dollars in savings through the 

end of the direct payment program and clarification of eligibility for farm program payments. 

—The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act reauthorization realigned and 

streamlined employment and training programs, and the Water Resources Reform and Development Act directed the Army Corps of Engineers to realign 

projects according to priority. 

—The Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization 

Act for fiscal year 2015 (2015 NDAA) required the Department of Defense to 

periodically reassess their headquarters requirements to address growth in 

headquarters bureaucracy. 

Increasing Government transparency 

—The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act required the Federal Government to set government-wide data standards for financial data intended to result in consistent, reliable, and searchable government-wide spending data 

available to the Congress, agency managers, and the public. 

—The 2015 Appropriations Act and numerous authorization acts required Federal 

agencies to report on how they would respond to GAO’s findings and recommendations. 

Services for veterans 

—The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act reflected GAO’s recommendations regarding changes in the procedures for which VA will pay for 

healthcare for veterans outside of the VA system. It also addresses concerns 

about coordination between VA and the Indian Health Service on veteran’s 

healthcare. 

—The Act takes measures to improve IT and staff training related to appointment 

scheduling. 

—The fiscal year 2015 Appropriations Act instructs DOD to improve cemetery and 

burial operations, including implementing GAO’s recommendations regarding 

better serving rural veterans. 

Responding to emerging security issues 

—Five new laws addressing emerging cybersecurity challenges reflected GAO’s 

recommendations, including provisions related to security standards, improving 

the Federal cybersecurity workforce, promoting public and private collaboration 

regarding cybersecurity, and to clarify and strengthen cybersecurity roles 

among Federal agencies. 

—With regard to chemical facility security, GAO’s work was reflected in the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities Act of 2014, which should result in improved risk assessment procedures. 

Improvements to Federal acquisitions 

—In addition to the savings from weapon systems mentioned above, GAO’s work 

was reflected in the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, 

which addresses cost and performance issues in Federal IT acquisitions by improving the transparency of major IT investments, expanding the Chief Information Officer’s authorities, eliminating duplication, and identifying cost savings opportunities. 

—Similarly, the Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act of 2014 requires 

the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reform their approach to identifying technology investments and 

monitoring cost, schedule and performance of these acquisitions. 
14 

1GAO’s performance results can be found at: http://www.gao.gov/about/perfaccountreport.html. 

Our Web site includes a summary of GAO’s fiscal year 2014 Performance and Accountability 

Report as well as the complete report. The annual report informs Congress and the American 

people about what we have achieved on their behalf with the funds entrusted to us. 

Protecting workers and consumers 

—In the 2015 Appropriations Act the Congress addressed the severe financial difficulties of multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s Multiemployer Insurance Program. 

—The Cooperative and Small Employer Charity Pension Flexibility Act also reflected GAO’s recommendations regarding these pensions. 

—The 2015 Appropriations Act also limits the ability of the National Technical 

Information Service, within the Department of Commerce, to charge consumers 

for reports from the Legislative Branch offices that can be obtained from those 

offices for free. 

—It also required the Department of Education to report on how it would implement GAO’s recommendations to improve management of the District of Columbia’s Opportunity Scholarship Program and ensure that administrative funds 

can be used to implement them. 

—The Coast Guard reauthorization required that information about crime on 

cruise ships be made easily available on the Department of Transportation’s 

Web site. 

Program and Operational Benefits due to GAO’s Work 

Many of the benefits resulting from our work cannot be measured in dollars, but 

led to program and operational improvements across the Government. During fiscal 

year 2014, we recorded 1,288 of these other benefits.1

GAO’s work led to improvements in numerous areas affecting public safety and 

security and the efficient and effective functioning of Government programs. Examples of actions taken by Government agencies in response to our work include: 

—better guidance and oversight to ensure complete documentation of investigations into abuse allegations at immigration detention facilities; 

—an improved cyber security governance structure to ensure that Federal agencies’ efforts to educate the Nation’s cyber security workforce are effective; 

—strengthened oversight of international food aid to ensure that targeted assistance reaches vulnerable groups, such as children and pregnant women, in other 

countries; 

—enhanced security of diplomatic facilities and personnel overseas, including improvements to security standards and efforts to mitigate vulnerabilities; 

—better sharing of terrorism-related information with Federal and non-Federal 

partners and enhanced efforts to identify and narrow gaps in information sharing; 

—informed decisionmaking on the future of nanomanufacturing, including research and development, U.S. competitiveness, and environmental, health, and 

safety concerns; and 

—improved transparency regarding how sequestration decisions were implemented so that agencies can better plan for such events if they occur in the future. 

This past fiscal year, GAO also issued revised internal control standards for the 

Federal Government and made significant contributions to international auditing 

standards. These standards can help agencies achieve effective internal control systems to safeguard public resources, report reliable information about their operations, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. 

Through the products we issued in fiscal year 2014, we continued to build on bodies of work under our three broad strategic goals: 

(1) address current and emerging challenges to the well-being and financial security of the American people; 

(2) respond to changing security threats and global interdependence; and 

(3) help transform the Federal Government to address national challenges. 

Work completed in these areas included: 

—Protection of children—we reported on the need for improvements to school 

lunches, guidance for states on the use of psychotropic drugs for children in foster care, and preventing sexual abuse of students by school personnel; 

—Veterans—we reported on out-patient medical care, purchasing and tracking of 

surgical implants, cost increases and schedule delays in constructing and leasing VA medical facilities, and the accuracy and quality of processing disability 

claims for veterans; 
15 

—Healthcare—we continued to report on the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (e.g., HealthCare.gov), drug shortages, Internet 

pharmacies selling counterfeit drugs, Medicare fraud, Medicaid financing, and 

nursing home care; and —Financial literacy—we reported on retirement security, managed retirement accounts, student loans, college debit cards, and lump sum payment pension 

scams. 

Testimonies 

Senior GAO officials testified 129 times before 70 separate committees or subcommittees on issues that touched virtually all major Federal agencies. Figure 1 

shows examples of topics GAO testified on in fiscal year 2014 organized by strategic 

goal. 

Additional information on selected testimonies can be found in Part II of the 2014 

Performance and Accountability Report at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO–15– 

1SP. 

FIGURE 1: EXAMPLES OF FISCAL YEAR 2014 TESTIMONIES BY GOAL 

Goal 1: Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being and Financial 

Security of the American People 

Processing Veterans’ Disability Benefits 

Early Learning and Child Care 

Social Security Disability Programs 

Timely Outpatient Medical Care for 

Veterans 

Federal Fiscal Exposure from Climate 

Risks 

Export-Import Bank Management 

Airport Development and Financing 

Oil and Gas Management 

U.S. Postal Service’s Unfunded Benefit 

Liabilities 

Oversight of Student Loans 

Public Transit Challenges 

Expectations of Government Support for 

Large Bank Holding Companies 

Federal Efforts Supporting Financial 

Literacy 

VA Construction of Major Medical 

Facilities Face Cost Increases and 

Schedule Delays 

Medicare Fraud 

Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global Interdependence 

Arizona Boarder Surveillance Technology 

Plan 

Personnel Security Clearances 

DOD’s POW/MIA Mission and 

Challenges 

Enhancing Federal Response to 

Information Security Breaches 

Space Launch Acquisitions 

Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Acquisition Management 

Reforms 

DHS Chemical Security Program 

DHS’s Progress Addressing High Risk 

Issues 

DOD Acquisition Risks 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter 

NASA Export Controls 

DHS Research and Development 

Oversight 

Defense Health Reform 

USAID Support for Haiti’s 

Reconstruction 

HealthCare.gov Security and Privacy 

Controls 

TSA’s Screening Partnership Program 

Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government to Address National Challenges 

Biosafety Lapses in High Containment 

Labs 

Use of Psychotropic Medications for 

Foster Children 

IT Reform 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act Enrollment Control 

Leveraging Best Practices for IT 

Acquisitions 

Monitoring Improper Payments 

Government-wide Challenges to 

Efficiency and Effectiveness 

Reducing Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication in Federal Programs 

DOD Financial Management 

————— 

Source: GAO. 

In addition, to better serve our clients and the public, we expanded our presence 

in digital and social media, releasing GAO iPhone and Android applications, and 

launching streaming video web chats with the public. More than 31,300 people now 

get our testimonies, reports, and legal decisions daily on Twitter, and our blog was 

just named one of the five best across the Federal Government. 

Building on our efforts in fiscal year 2013 to improve the GAO Watchdog website, 

available exclusively for members and their staff, in fiscal year 2014 we added drop- 
16 

down menus, videos, and other features to enhance the user-friendliness of the site; 

improved functionality by allowing users to more easily find information on completed and ongoing GAO engagements; and feature new content such as descriptions 

of the full range of products and services GAO provides, including briefings by subject matter experts, comments on legislation, and assistance in drafting requests for 

work. 

High Risk Program 

GAO maintains a list for Congress of High Risk areas, which focuses on Government operations that are at high risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, 

or need transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges, 

organized by six broad areas that touch on every aspect of Government operations: —Strengthening the Foundation for Efficiency and Effectiveness, including management of Federal oil and gas resources, modernizing the U.S. financial regulatory system and the Federal role in housing finance; —Transforming DOD Program Management; —Ensuring Public Safety and Security, including mitigating gaps in weather satellite data and protecting public health through enhanced oversight of medical 

products; —Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively, including at DOD, NASA and 

DOE; —Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration; and —Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs. 

In February 2015, GAO released its latest update of the list. The report noted 

that solid, steady progress has been made in the vast majority of the high-risk 

areas. Eighteen of the 30 areas on the 2013 list at least partially met all of the criteria for removal from the High Risk List. Of those, 11 met at least one of the criteria for removal and partially met all others. Sufficient progress was made to narrow the scope of two high-risk issues—Protecting Public Health through Enhanced 

Oversight of Medical Products and DOD Contract Management. Overall, progress 

has been possible through the concerted actions of Congress, leadership and staff 

in agencies, and the Office of Management and Budget. 

This year GAO added 2 areas, bringing the total to 32: 

—Managing Risks and Improving Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care.—GAO has 

reported since 2000 about VA facilities’ failure to provide timely healthcare. In 

some cases, these delays or (VA’s failure to provide care at all) have reportedly 

harmed veterans. Although VA has taken actions to address some GAO recommendations, more than 100 of GAO’s recommendations have not been fully 

addressed. The recently enacted Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability 

Act included provisions to help VA address systemic weaknesses. VA must effectively implement the Act. —Improving the Management of Information Technology (IT) Acquisitions and Operations.—Congress has passed legislation and the administration has undertaken numerous initiatives to better manage IT investments. Federal IT investments too frequently fail to be completed or incur cost overruns and schedule 

slippages while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. GAO has found 

that the Federal Government spent billions of dollars on failed and poorly performing IT investments which often suffered from ineffective management, such 

as project planning, requirements definition, and program oversight and governance. Over the past 5 years, GAO made more than 730 recommendations; about 

23 percent had been fully implemented as of January 2015. 

GAO is also expanding two areas due to evolving high-risk issues: 

—Enforcement of Tax Laws.—This area is expanded to include IRS’s efforts to ad- dress tax refund fraud due to identify theft. IRS estimates it paid out $5.8 billion (the exact number is uncertain) in fraudulent refunds in tax year 2013 due 

to identity theft. This occurs when a thief files a fraudulent return using a legitimate taxpayer’s identifying information and claims a refund. —Ensuring the Security of Federal Information Systems and Cyber Critical Infrastructure and Protecting the Privacy of Personally Identifiable Information 

(PII).—This risk area is expanded because of the challenges to ensuring the privacy of personally identifiable information posed by advances in technology. 

These advances have allowed both Government and private sector entities to 

collect and process extensive amounts of PII more effectively. The number of reported security incidents involving PII at Federal agencies has increased dramatically in recent years. 

Solving these high risk problems has the potential to save billions of dollars, 

improve service to the public, and strengthen the performance and accountability 
17 

2 Eighteen actions (or 4 percent) have been assessed as ‘‘consolidated or other’’ due to additional work or other information that we considered. 3Of the 18 actions assessed as ‘‘consolidated or other,’’ 13 relate to executive branch actions 

(or 3 percent of the actions directed to the executive branch). 4Of the 18 actions assessed as ‘‘consolidated or other,’’ five relate to congressional actions (or 

7 percent of the actions directed to Congress). 

of the U.S. Government. For example, since our last update in 2013, we issued 

317 reports, delivered 78 testimonies to Congress, and prepared numerous other 

products such as briefings related to our high risk work. We documented more 

than $40 billion in financial benefits and 866 other improvements related to highrisk areas. The complete list of high-risk areas is included as Appendix I. Details 

on each high-risk area can be found at http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/overview. 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication 

GAO issued the fourth annual report in 2014 identifying 26 new areas and 64 actions that could reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, as well as other cost 

savings and revenue enhancement opportunities across the Federal Government. To 

date, we have identified 188 areas where opportunities exist for executive branch 

agencies or Congress to reduce, eliminate, or better manage fragmentation, overlap, 

or duplication; achieve cost savings; or enhance revenue. These areas span a broad 

range of Government missions and functions. 

Within these 188 areas, we’ve identified approximately 440 actions that executive 

branch agencies and Congress could take to address these opportunities for greater 

efficiency and effectiveness. Although Congress and executive branch agencies have 

made notable progress toward addressing the actions we have identified, further 

steps are needed to fully address the remaining actions. 

As of November 2014, of the recommended actions identified in 2011, 2012, 2013, 

and 2014, 29 percent have been addressed; 44 percent have been partially addressed; and 23 percent have not been addressed.2 More specifically, of the actions 

directed to executive branch agencies, 30 percent have been addressed, 49 percent 

partially addressed, and 18 percent not addressed.3 Of the actions directed to Congress, 26 percent have been addressed, 16 percent partially addressed, and 51 percent not addressed.4

We estimate that executive branch and congressional efforts to address actions identified by GAO have resulted in over $10 billion in realized savings with an additional $60 billion in financial benefits to be accrued over the next 10 years. Implementing other suggested actions could result in tens of billions of dollars more in 

cost savings and enhanced revenues. For example, in 2012, GAO reported that the 

military’s approach to acquiring combat uniforms was fragmented, which could increase battlefield risk and increase costs. As a result of a provision to the National 

Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, the Army did not field new camouflage uniforms, avoiding $4.2 billion in costs over 5 years. 

To assist congressional oversight of these issues, we maintain GAO’s Action 

Tracker, a publicly accessible Web site containing the status of actions suggested 

in this series of reports. The Web site allows Congress, executive branch agencies, 

and the public to track the progress the Government is making in addressing the 

issues we have identified. 

Legal Work 

In fiscal year 2014, GAO published 22 appropriations decisions, opinions, and letters on wide-ranging issues such as DOD’s transfer of individuals from Guantanamo 

Bay, and the District of Columbia’s budget autonomy. GAO attorneys also provided 

ongoing appropriations law assistance to various congressional committees and Federal agencies navigating the Government shutdown. 

GAO also assisted Congress on a number of other matters, including continuing 

advice on the implementation of sequestration. Finally, GAO’s Office of General 

Counsel handled more than 2,500 bid protest cases during fiscal year 2014, issuing 

more than 500 decisions on the merits. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, directed GAO to develop an electronic 

bid protest filing system. The statute also authorized the collection and use of fees 

to offset the costs of that system. We conducted outreach with Congress and small 

business and veterans groups identified by congressional stakeholders regarding the 

implementation of a filing fee. Periodic updates are provided on our progress to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

We are making progress in developing the system. After considering the functional requirements for an electronic filing system, with an emphasis on IT security 

issues, we conducted market research through a Request for Information. We invited several vendors to provide demonstrations of their capabilities, and we devel-
18 

5 Congressional mandates include requirements directed by statutes, congressional resolutions, 

conference reports, and committee reports. 

oped a prototype bid protest electronic filing system as a proof of concept. We currently expect to complete development and launch the system by the end of calendar 

2015. 

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SERVING CONGRESS

In February 2014, GAO released its updated Strategic Plan: Serving the Congress 

and the Nation 2014–2019 (GAO–14–1SP). The plan describes our proposed goals 

and strategies for supporting Congress and the Nation as the country continues 

through this period of challenge and opportunity. Our strategic plan framework (Appendix II) summarizes the global trends, as well as the strategic goals and objectives that guide our work. 

While summarizing trends shaping the United States and its place in the world, 

the strategic plan reflects the areas of work we plan to undertake, including science 

and technology, weapons systems, healthcare, homeland security, the environment, 

and energy. 

GAO will also increase collaboration with other national audit offices to ensure 

sound collaboration and coordination on global issues that directly affect the United 

States, including international financial markets. 

MANAGING WORKLOAD BY FOCUSING RESOURCES ON CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITIES

To manage our congressional workload, we continue to take steps to ensure our 

work supports the highest congressional legislative and oversight priorities while focusing on areas where there is the greatest potential for results, such as cost savings and improved Government performance. 

We actively coordinate with congressional committees in advance of new statutory 

mandates 5 by identifying mandates real time as bills are introduced; participating 

in ongoing discussions with congressional staff; and collaborating to ensure that the 

work is properly scoped and is consistent with the committee’s highest priorities. 

In fiscal year 2014, 33 percent of our audit resources were devoted to mandates 

and 63 percent to congressional requests. I regularly meet with Chairs and Ranking 

Members of committees and subcommittees to hear firsthand feedback on our performance. Their priorities help ensure we maximize the return on your investment 

in us. 

As a matter of routine, GAO also reviews its list of recurring mandates (i.e., those 

that have repeating requirements over time) on an annual basis, and works with 

the appropriate committees to revise or repeal, as appropriate, those mandates on 

topics or programs which have already been fully analyzed, thereby freeing up resources for higher congressional priorities. 

During the second session of the 113th Congress, we collaborated with the Congress to revise or repeal GAO’s mandated reporting requirements which had, over 

time, lost relevance or usefulness. Specifically, GAO worked with responsible committees to have six mandates repealed or revised as part of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, HR 4194, Government Reports Elimination Act 

repeals or revises an additional 11 mandates, and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 included provisions to modify or repeal 4 reporting requirements for GAO. Both of these were passed by the Congress and signed by the 

President in November 2014. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 REQUIREMENTS

GAO’s fiscal year 2016 budget request seeks an appropriation increase of $31.1 

million, or 5.9 percent, to support a modest increase in our staffing level to 3,055 

FTE and continue critical improvements in our IT, building, and security infrastructures. Costs will be offset with $33.4 million in reimbursements, primarily from financial audits and rental income. 

The requested resources provide the funds necessary to ensure that GAO can 

meet the highest priority needs of Congress and produce results to help the Federal 

Government deal effectively with its serious fiscal and other challenges. A summary 

of GAO’s resources for our fiscal year 2010 baseline and fiscal years 2014 to 2016 

is shown in Figure 2. 
19 

FIGURE 2: FISCAL YEAR 2010 BASELINE AND FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO FISCAL YEAR 2016 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Funding Source 

Fiscal Year 2010 

Actual 

Fiscal Year 2014 

Actual 

Fiscal Year 2015 

Estimated 

Fiscal Year 2016 

Request 

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount 

Salaries and Expenses 

Appropriation ............................... .......... $556,325 .......... $505,293 .......... $522,000 .......... $553,058 

Non-legislative-branch appropriation .......... 21,804 .......... 70 .......... ................ .......... ................

Reimbursements ............................... .......... 10,214 .......... 2,330 .......... 8,405 .......... 7,955 

Offsetting receipts ........................... .......... 10,892 .......... 20,898 .......... 25,000 .......... 25,000 

Bid protest user fees ....................... .......... ................ .......... ................ .......... ................ .......... 450 

Total budget authority ........ 3,347 $599,235 2,891 $528,591 3,015 $555,405 3,055 $586,463 

Source: GAO. 

STAFF CAPACITY

Our talented, diverse, and high-performing workforce is essential in fulfilling our 

mission of supporting Congress. While progress has been made, we still face challenges in addressing critical human capital management issues, including preparing 

for retirements of key subject matter experts, senior executives, and other key leaders; maintaining a performance-based and inclusive culture that helps motivate and 

retain a talented and diverse staff; and maintaining workplace and work-life practices that meet the needs of an evolving workforce in an equitable manner. 

A significant proportion of our employees are currently retirement eligible. Presently, about 40 percent of our senior executive staff and 21 percent of our supervisory analysts are retirement eligible. In fiscal year 2015, through a targeted recruiting strategy to address critical skills gaps, we plan to hire entry-level staff and 

student interns to achieve a staff capacity of 3,015 FTEs. This will allow us to continue to reverse the downward trend in our FTEs and achieve some progress in 

reaching our optimal staffing level of 3,250 FTEs. Our fiscal year 2016 budget seeks 

funding for a 3,055 FTE level to help us continue to replenish the much needed 

pipeline of entry-level and experienced analysts to meet future workload challenges. 

Priority Areas for Increased Staffing 

GAO has identified areas that merit increased review and attention as additional 

staffing is made available including: 

—Continued Identification and Reduction in Improper Payments.—In fiscal year 

2014 improper payments made in Federal programs were estimated to be over 

$124 billion, nearly $19 billion higher than reported for fiscal year 2013. Moreover, much of this increase is in two of the fastest growing programs in terms 

of Federal expenditures—Medicare and Medicaid. GAO will continue to be vigilant in identifying improper payments and providing recommendations to prevent this wasteful situation. 

—Science and Technology.—Congress increasingly asks GAO to review multi-billion dollar Federal investments in science and technology areas, such as 

cybersecurity, satellite and space programs, sophisticated weapons systems, as 

well as the environmental and energy sectors. GAO has also developed the capability to do science and technology assessments, and will continue to replenish our staff capacity to maintain a strong position in this area. 

—The tax gap.—The net gap between taxes owed and taxes paid is an estimated 

$385 billion each year. There is about an 84 percent compliance rate on taxes 

owed to the Federal Government. GAO has identified a number of opportunities 

for the Internal Revenue Service to get better data to do the necessary comparisons and increase collections. GAO will continue to devote resources to this 

area. The additional resources will enable us to expand our work in finding 

ways to further close the tax gap. 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES

In addition to addressing critical staffing needs, the fiscal year 2016 budget request also focuses funding on two other areas, information technology and building 

and security. 
20 

—Information Technology 

GAO’s IT systems are an essential component in ongoing efforts to maintain 

efficient and effective business operations and to provide timely data needed to 

inform management decisions. 

Improvements to our aging IT software will streamline business operations, 

reduce redundant efforts, increase staff effectiveness and productivity, improve 

access to information, facilitate a more agile and mobile workforce, and improve 

operational efficiency. 

We continue to implement many of these actions in a phased approach to promote efficiencies and monitor effectiveness. In fiscal year 2016, we plan to: 

—complete implementation of the first phase of a new content creation system, 

which will automate the creation, indexing, referencing, review, approval, and 

publishing of GAO products via a standard workflow; 

—increase the availability of our core network wireless infrastructure at both 

headquarters and the field offices; and 

—strengthen our cellular signal with a new antenna capability, which will allow 

GAO to change providers without needing to upgrade internal antennas. 

These efforts will strengthen GAO’s technology infrastructure and support an 

array of engagement management, human capital, and financial management 

systems. 

—Building and Security 

GAO plans to upgrade critical aging building systems to ensure more efficient 

operations and security. To support these requirements our fiscal year 2016 

budget request includes resources to: 

—make general structural and architectural repairs, including the elevator 

shafts, interior walls, auditorium walls, projection booth, and the handicapped 

lift; 

—continue addressing priority items identified in the asset management plan 

for critical repairs, end-of-life replacements, and energy saving investments in 

the headquarters building, including replacement of the first floor heating 

and air conditioning system and the overhaul and retrofit of two chillers; 

—complete the headquarters lockdown project, which would provide building 

guards with the capability to lock all street exit doors more quickly in the 

event of an emergency or threat; and 

—install Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System capabilities to facilitate access to DOD’s Top Secret/SCI Internet. 

Telework/Workspace–Sharing Pilots Reduce Costs and Improve Operational Efficiency 

GAO remains committed to sound operational efficiency and effectiveness. Our 

telework/workspace-sharing pilot has provided an opportunity for staff to work remotely while maintaining quality and productivity. This strategy has allowed GAO 

to reduce our physical footprint in the field and achieve cost savings of over $2 million. 

GAO is presently assessing the prospect of telework/workspace-sharing pilots in 

our Washington, DC headquarters. Implementation in headquarters may provide 

opportunities to streamline space usage and release space for lease to a future tenant, resulting in additional revenue. Results of the pilot will be critical to determining the potential for space reductions. 

GAO RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE ‘‘BEST PLACES TO WORK’’ 

On December 9, 2014, the Partnership for Public Service announced that GAO 

placed second among mid-size agencies in the best places to work in the Federal 

Government, and ranked number one in its support of diversity in that same category. GAO has consistently placed among the top five on the Partnership’s list 

since 2005. 

We continuously strive to be the employer of choice in the public sector. Our ranking results from the dedicated efforts of the entire GAO team and leadership for 

their commitment in continuing to make GAO one of the Best Places to Work. GAO 

management remains committed to work with our union (IFPTE, Local 1921), the 

Employee Advisory Council, and the Diversity Advisory Council to continue to make 

GAO a preferred place to work. 

CENTER FOR AUDIT EXCELLENCE

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, enacted in 

December 2014, authorized GAO to establish a Center for Audit Excellence to build 
21 

institutional auditing capacity and promote good governance by providing training 

and assistance to qualified personnel and entities, and permitted GAO to charge 

fees for the Center’s products and services. 

The Center’s mission is to enhance good governance and build the institutional 

auditing capacity of domestic and international audit organizations by providing 

high quality training, technical assistance, and related services that leverage GAO’s 

position as a global leader in auditing. A business plan will be provided to the Appropriations Committees that will outline several key principles to help ensure effective operation of the Center. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In conclusion, GAO values the opportunity to provide Congress and the Nation 

with timely, insightful analysis on the challenges facing the country. GAO’s fiscal 

year 2016 budget request is a fiscally responsible approach that will better position 

GAO to continue to support Congress and foster Government accountability, address 

long-standing challenges, and keep a watchful eye on the Nation’s future. 

Our budget request includes funds to increase our staffing level and provide employees with the appropriate resources and support needed to effectively serve Congress. The requested funding will also allow us to continue efforts to promote operational efficiency, and begin addressing long-deferred investments and maintenance. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I appreciate, as always, your continued 

support and careful consideration of our budget. I look forward to discussing our fiscal year 2016 request with you. 

APPENDIX I: GAO’S 2015 HIGH RISK LIST 

Strengthening the Foundation for Efficiency and Effectiveness 

—Limiting the Federal Government’s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks 

—Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources 

—Modernizing the U.S. Financial Regulatory System and the Federal Role in 

Housing Finance a

—Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service to Achieve Sustainable Financial Viability a

—Funding the Nation’s Surface Transportation System a

—Strategic Human Capital Management 

—Managing Federal Real Property 

—Improving the Management of IT Acquisitions and Operations (new) 

Transforming DOD Program Management 

—DOD Approach to Business Transformation 

—DOD Business Systems Modernization 

—DOD Support Infrastructure Management a

—DOD Financial Management 

—DOD Supply Chain Management 

—DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition 

Ensuring Public Safety and Security 

—Mitigating Gaps in Weather Satellite Data 

—Strengthening Department of Homeland Security Management Functions 

—Establishing Effective Mechanisms for Sharing and Managing Terrorism-Related Information to Protect the Homeland 

—Ensuring the Security of Federal Information Systems and Cyber Critical Infrastructure and Protecting the Privacy of Personally Identifiable Information a

—Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S. National Security Interests a

—Improving Federal Oversight of Food Safety a

—Protecting Public Health through Enhanced Oversight of Medical Products 

—Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals a

Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively 

—DOD Contract Management 

—DOE’s Contract Management for the National Nuclear Security Administration 

and Office of Environmental Management 

—NASA Acquisition Management 

Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration 

—Enforcement of Tax Laws a
22 

Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs 

—Managing Risks and Improving VA Health Care (new) 

—Improving and Modernizing Federal Disability Programs 

—Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Insurance Programs a

—Medicare Program a

—Medicaid Program a

—National Flood Insurance Program a

————— 

Source: GAO. 

aLegislation is likely to be necessary to effectively address this high-risk area. 
23 

APPENDIX II: GAO’S STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK 
24 

EXPLANATION FOR THREE NEW FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I want to thank both of you. I will 

begin the questions. Dr. Elmendorf, you mentioned and you highlighted in your statement the fact that the demand exceeds the 

supply in terms of your workforce. You have asked for three more 

FTEs. 

I am wondering, is this part of a gradual build up that you believe is necessary for the CBO in order to meet the demand you 

talked about? Or do you think this is because of the healthcare 

issue, and maybe some of the macroeconomic issues that need to 

be addressed? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Madam Chairman, I think the Congress would 

benefit from higher staffing levels at CBO. A few years ago, we had 

more than 250 FTEs. That was an increase relative to the 235 that 

we had in the first part of the last decade, and that increase was 

designed by the Appropriations Committee, the Budget Committee, 

and CBO, so that CBO could serve the Congress better, and in particular, by being able to do more analysis of healthcare issues without cutting back on the analysis we do across the whole range of 

other topics. 

We put those extra resources to good use. We hired people and 

we produced more estimates of pending legislative proposals. We 

produced more reports, studying areas of the Federal budget. We 

did more building of models to give you and your colleagues more 

accurate estimates of the effects of proposals. 

If it were up to me and money was freely available, I would certainly have requested a larger increase for CBO, but we understand the constraints you operate under, and we view this as a 

small step in a direction that would be useful to you. 

USE OF CONTRACTORS AT CBO

Senator CAPITO. I appreciate that. Do you use contractors at all? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Very little. We have a few contractors. We look 

for expertise outside of CBO when we do not have it, but the vast 

majority of our expertise is in-house, and we have just a few contractors in particular areas, some in support areas, in IT, and some 

in substantive areas of economic and budgetary analysis, but it is 

very limited. 

HIRING EMPLOYEES WITH NON-IMMIGRANT VISAS

Senator CAPITO. You mentioned the skills gap, trying to find the 

highly skilled economists in terms of competition with both the private and public sector agencies. In the 2016 budget, you include 

language that you have asked for for the last several years authorizing the hiring of employees with non-immigrant visas. 

I understand this is not the first time, but why do you believe 

that hiring of employees with non-immigrant visas is critical to the 

workforce, to your workforce? Is it because we do not have the talent here at all or you cannot compete for that talent? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I think we are always trying to attract and retain the best people we can, and I am very proud of the people we 

have at CBO, but we find the recruiting and retention processes to 

be difficult. 
25 

On the recruiting side, about 35 percent of CBO staff have 

Ph.D.’s in economics, and two-thirds of the people who are obtaining Ph.D.’s in economics in this country are foreign nationals. 

If we can only look at the other third, we have just taken off the 

table two-thirds of the people who might have the skills that we 

need, and we cannot settle for people who do not have the right 

skills, but we end up looking harder and longer. We have larger 

gaps between when somebody leaves and before we can fill that 

slot. We sometimes hire people who then need more training from 

us, which is fine, but it slows our work for Congress. 

If we could broaden the field of people whom we could hire, at 

least in cases where we have a particular shortage of those skills 

in U.S. citizens, we think that would help us. 

We had some of that authority until 2010, and we hired a small 

number of foreign nationals. At that point, our authority was limited to countries that were allies of the United States, and there 

was a well defined list of such countries. We found at the time that 

helped us fill some crucial niches, and that is the authority that 

we are requesting to have restored. 

GAO EDUCATION DEMOGRAPHIC

Senator CAPITO. Just curious, Mr. Dodaro, what percentage of 

your workforce are Ph.D. economists, approximately? 

Mr. DODARO. About 75 percent of our people have advanced degrees, Master’s and Ph.D.’s. 

CENTER FOR ADULT EXCELLENCE

Senator CAPITO. There are probably not too many Ph.D. economists, not as many as maybe we need. Let me ask you, at GAO, 

you created the Center for Audit Excellence, authorized in the 2015 

bill. Can you give us an update on that and what your plans for 

the Center are? 

Mr. DODARO. The purposes of the Center are really to help advance U.S. interests abroad. The United States spent money along 

with others in the donor community. USAID and multinational 

lending organizations are moving to rely more on country systems. 

We would build the auditing capacity in other countries so there 

is better accountability over U.S. funds and other funds. 

Also, this would improve the global marketplace. Right now, for 

example, in the global financial markets it is important to have 

international regulations implemented properly. We get most of our 

drugs now, 80 percent ingredients for prescription drugs, from 

other countries, and 40 percent of finished drugs. More of our food 

is now being imported. 

If we can build the audit capacities in other countries, there will 

be better protections for U.S. consumers and U.S. interests. 

We have developed a business plan for the Center. Just in the 

last couple of months alone, the State Department approached us 

about providing training to an African country to help fight corruption. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has asked for help in 

providing training in South America and other areas. 

We get requests all the time. We are considered one of the global 

leaders in auditing in the world. 
26 

Senator CAPITO. Quick question on that, and then I will go to my 

colleagues. When you are aiding another country, are you charging 

a consulting fee or anything like that? 

Mr. DODARO. Right now, we have to have the committees approve our business plan before we can actually start operations. 

The idea is to charge a fee. The Center would be self financing. We 

need money for start up, like any other small business. Our plan 

is to use retired GAO people. That way it will not affect our service 

to the Congress. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Senator Schatz. 

ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE (ESPCs) AND UTILITY ENERGY

SERVICE CONTRACT (UESCs)

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. Dr. Elmendorf, CBO recently released a report that had great things to say about the taxpayer 

benefits of using energy savings performance contracts and utility 

energy service contracts to make long term investments to reduce 

energy costs. 

You report that by law under Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), energy efficiency upgrades are paid back exclusively from realized energy savings. These contracts never result in a penny of new spending, and agencies do not need to make a meaningful upfront investment. 

CBO also reports that beyond having a guarantee of no cost to 

the taxpayer, ESPCs and UESCs save taxpayer spending on energy. CBO estimates that after a contract is repaid using energy 

savings, the taxpayer typically retains at least 25 percent of the 

savings produced by the energy efficient equipment over its useful 

life. 

I think the report confirms ESPCs and UESCs are a sound strategy. Again, they do not require one penny of spending, typically 

produce savings well beyond their costs, and isolate the taxpayer 

from risk that the equipment will under perform or fail. 

As you know, the CBO’s budgetary treatment of ESPCs and 

UESCs prevent Congress from enacting policies that will allow for 

more deployment across the Federal Government. This is because 

the score of the legislation to expand the use of ESPCs and UESCs 

only reflects the cost of the investments but not the savings that 

flow back over time. 

We need a clear picture of which programs are saving money and 

CBO’s scoring hides the true financial benefits of these types of instruments. CBO has reported several times that the budget rules 

constrain the agency from reflecting the cumulative net costs and 

savings from expanding the use of ESPCs and UESCs. 

Dr. Elmendorf, why does CBO show any cost for entering into a 

contract when the contracts themselves guarantee no cost? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Senator, I appreciate your careful read of our 

report. Let me try to make a few points. The first is that in our 

analysis of the effects of ESPCs on the Federal Government’s energy costs, we rely on analyses of other agencies, including the 

Government Accountability Office. 

Our summary does report that on balance, the energy savings 

performance contracts that have been entered into recently have 
27 

reduced Federal energy costs. That is not true necessarily with 

every single contract. As we explained, there can be a wide variation in the return across contracts, but on average, that is what 

other agencies have determined has happened. 

In our cost estimates for legislation involving ESPCs, we provide 

the Congress with the same sort of information that we do for 

other legislation. We provide an assessment of effects of the legislation on the discretionary spending, the appropriations that are determined by this committee and the rest of the Congress every 

year, and we provide estimates of effects on mandatory spending. 

We do show as a cost in mandatory spending the commitment 

that the Federal Government is making when it enters into a contract of that sort. That is not a matter of scoring rules. That is just 

a matter of basic budget principles, which is to show the up front 

costs. 

We also show the savings that can accrue in subsequent years. 

I think one challenge is that the budget window goes 10 years, and 

many of the savings, the largest savings in energy costs come well 

outside that window. 

Senator SCHATZ. Sure. There are a couple of issues here. One is 

the scoring window, and I kind of understand how constrained you 

may be because frankly it is a difficult challenge, and my view is 

if most of the savings occur outside of the scoring window, it becomes a policy and an appropriations question more so than a 

question of how it gets scored. 

To be precise about UESCs and ESPCs, the way these contracts 

are written, at least some of the time, is that the contract is written so that the Government pays no money. 

In other words, it is a deal that a State government or a county 

government has often made private sector companies do this all the 

time, the company says we will retrofit your building, and whatever savings there is, some will be remitted to the performance contractor and some will be remitted back to the client. 

I guess I am having a difficult time understanding how there is 

any costs at all that goes on the books. I understand there are technical details here. 

Try to explain to me in plain English why this would cost the 

Government anything, forgetting the window. Why would this be 

an obligation on the books, if this were a private sector company 

and this was under GAAP procedures or wherever you were, why 

in the world does this look like an expenditure in anyone’s world? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I think part of the answer, Senator, as you say, 

is the 10 year budget window. This is a transaction where much 

of the savings occurs outside a 10 year window. If you truncate 

what is reported—our study goes out 25 years to try to show the 

full lifetime effects of a contract of this sort, but for the 10 year 

budget window, if the savings are outside the window and you 

truncate the numbers at that point, then you will not see the full 

savings that you are discussing. 

The other point is—— 

Senator SCHATZ. That is the saving side. What about the expenditure side? Am I misunderstanding what an energy savings performance contract is? My understanding over the last 12 odd years 

in State government and 2 years in the Federal Government is at 
28 

least some of these are written such that the Government has no 

obligation at all to expend a penny. 

What are you marking down? What are you recognizing as an expenditure there? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. What we are recognizing as an expenditure is 

the commitment the Government makes, it is acquiring equipment, 

lighting or insulation or what have you, and it is making a commitment to pay for that over a period of a number of years, but the 

commitment occurs up front. 

It is true that on the year by year basis going forward, the Government will get some savings that will offset those payments so 

that—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Just to be clear, even from the first year, it is 

not like you are paying a little more in the beginning and then you 

get your savings back. You are starting at—— 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, in a standard contract, there is a little bit 

of savings for many years and then larger savings beyond that once 

the equipment has been essentially paid off. 

Senator SCHATZ. You are saying acquiring the commitment is 

what has to be recognized essentially on the spending side? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, that is right. I think that is really a very 

important principle, that if the Government takes an action that 

commits it to spending money, then that cost should be recorded, 

we think, and very long-standing budget principles say it should be 

recorded at the time that commitment is made. 

The savings will be realized later in many cases, and we try to 

show those as well. The distinction, again, I think is partly the 10 

year cutoff and partly the distinction between discretionary spending and mandatory spending. 

There is a very deep distinction in how the Congress thinks 

about money. The discretionary spending is now controlled by the 

Congress through caps and is controlled through annual appropriations. The mandatory spending is limited by PAYGO rules. 

It is really not our place to combine those two different sorts of 

flows that the Congress treats very differently. We try to provide 

information in a contract. You mentioned in your statement that 

we prevent the Congress from doing something. I want to emphasize we do not prevent the Congress from doing anything. 

Senator SCHATZ. Fair enough. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. If the information we provide in these costs estimates does not explain the full picture that we see, then we should 

do a better job in the cost estimate, but I do not think it is by adding up budget categories that the Congress has really set very 

much apart for decades now. 

I am happy to talk to you about ways we can make the estimates 

express more clearly the point that you want to make. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator Murphy. 

KING v. BURWELL

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is a 

pleasure to sit on this committee with both of you, and let me add 

my appreciation to you, Dr. Elmendorf, for your service. 
29 

I think this is the first time you have been before any of the committees I have served on while I have been in the Senate, but while 

I was a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee during 

the healthcare debate and the energy debate, we got a lot of 

chances to speak to each other. 

One of the great frustrations to members of Congress is CBO’s 

independence, and you really truly are an independent body. That 

means you do your own interpretation, your own read of the statutes that we pass. We do not tell you what they mean. You do your 

own derivation and analysis and then attach numbers to it. 

I wanted in that context to ask you a question about probably 

the most important pending case before the Supreme Court right 

now, which is King v. Burwell. 

This is a pretty simple question as to whether the Affordable 

Care Act posits and allows for subsidies to go to states with Federal exchanges and State exchanges, or whether subsidies are allowable only to states that have set up their own State exchanges. 

I guess my question is pretty simple. How did CBO read the law 

as to this question of whether subsidies would go to Federal and 

State exchange participants or as the petitioners in this case believe, only to State exchange participants? 

What was CBO’s read? What did you base your numbers off of 

when you did your analysis of the law? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Senator, our estimates for the Affordable Care 

Act have always included subsidies flowing to people buying insurance through those exchanges whether the exchanges were being 

run by the Federal Government or State governments. 

We wrote in a letter to Chairman Issa a few years ago, and I 

quote ‘‘To the best of our recollection, the possibility that those subsidies would only be available in States that created their own exchanges did not arise during the discussions CBO staff had with 

a wide range of congressional staff when the legislation was being 

considered.’’ 

Senator MURPHY. When CBO comes to a place in which they may 

have questions about the interpretation of a statute, how do you 

deal with those questions? Do you just ask congressional staff or 

do you do your own interpretation of the totality of the statute and 

the totality of the record? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Senator, we read legislation and apply our judgment about its effects, but we did not conduct a full legal analysis 

of the Affordable Care Act of the sort some people may have then 

and certainly have since then. 

CBO has three attorneys on our staff. They read legislation with 

our analysts. They also handle all of the legislative needs of the 

agency as an operating organization. 

We do try to read the legislation that we see carefully, but we 

are not pouring over it with sort of a full legal analysis that you 

may be suggesting. 

Senator MURPHY. Your analysis was that the Affordable Care Act 

allowed for subsidies to go to State and Federal exchanges, thus, 

you priced it based on those—— 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Our estimates included the subsidies being provided to people in exchanges, whether they were operated by the 

State governments or by the Federal Government. 
30 

TWENTY PERCENT REDUCTION IN AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SUBSIDIES

Senator MURPHY. One other question on generally the same 

topic. You just released an updated cost analysis on the Affordable 

Care Act where you estimate that the overall cost will be about 10 

percent less but the cost of the subsidies will be 20 percent less. 

Can you just speak for a moment as to the driver for specifically 

that 20 percent reduction? That is a pretty large decrease in terms 

of the estimate over the course of 10 years as to how much the subsidy is going to cost. It was very welcome news. 

There are a couple of factors, right, that figured into your change 

in an analysis of the rest of the window of the law. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Senator, we released an analysis of the costs of 

the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act. That sort of 

analysis comes as a natural course of us doing updated baseline 

projections, because that coverage expansion is so recent, and it is 

not so much in the existing flow of data. We look at it separately 

still. 

For the other parts of the Affordable Care Act, the big change is 

Medicare and the big revenue increases. We do not update those 

separately as private baseline projections because they are woven 

into current law. 

For these coverage provisions, our new estimate of the costs of 

those provisions is 11 percent less over the next decade than our 

previous estimate, and as part of that, there was a down revision 

in the costs of the subsidies provided through insurance exchanges 

of about 20 percent. 

The larger factor there was continued slow growth in private 

health insurers’ spending. We have been expecting some bounce 

back, and that has not occurred. In fact, the latest data show slower growth than the years preceding that. We now have a number 

of years of quite slow growth, so we marked down our projection 

of growth in that spending going forward. 

A second factor was we now think there will be slightly fewer 

people who will take up coverage in the exchanges. That is from 

a combination of data about the sources of insurance coverage actually before the Affordable Care Act’s big insurance expansion. We 

now have more recent data than we had when we did these estimates some time ago. 

There were slightly fewer uninsured people, so less take up of 

those people into exchanges, and more of the people with employer 

sponsored health insurance or at large firms that are less likely to 

drop their coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, less flow from employers into the exchanges as well. 

Those factors together caused us to mark down our projection of 

coverage in the exchanges by about one million people in most 

years going forward. 

Senator MURPHY. Just one last quick question. Is part of that 

reason for increased numbers of people being on employer based 

coverage because your estimate of cancellations, policy cancellations, has decreased, or the trend line in the number of cancelled 

policies has decreased? 
31 

Dr. ELMENDORF. We think there will be fewer cancellations because of the creation of the exchanges and other features of the Affordable Care Act. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CAPITO. I am going to go for a second round. Just a clarification. When you said fewer people are projected to be on the exchanges than were originally, which was the cause of your projections going down by a certain percent, did you say you were predicting one million less people? Is that in 1 year or over 10 years? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, it is about one million fewer people in each 

of the next 10 years roughly. 

Senator CAPITO. Ten million less? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, well, we put it carefully as being number 

of people in a given year, because people can turn up the following 

year and are or are not covered in various years. 

Senator CAPITO. In a given year, I get that. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. We had been projecting on the order of 27 million people in the exchanges in 2025, and now we think it will be 

25 million. That difference may look like two, but there is some 

rounding, so the difference actually rounds to one million fewer 

people in 2025. Also, one million fewer in most of the years, each 

of the years of the coming decade. 

Senator CAPITO. Just curiosity wise, the last year that we have 

full data for would be 2013, that we have actual data of how many 

people are on the exchanges? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. The exchanges were not in place in 2013. We 

know how many people were in the exchanges last year. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay, 2014. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. That number we have. Some data we get pretty 

much right away, and for some data, we have a lag. 

Senator CAPITO. What was that number? Do you have it? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. That was, I think, six or seven million people. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. What were you projecting? I am just curious. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. We had been projecting, I think, somewhat 

more people a year or two or three ago. I think it came in a little 

below what we had been expecting a few years before that, but I 

am not 100 percent sure. We have been expecting a gradual ramp 

up in enrollment. 

We have actually knocked down our projection of enrollment for 

this year by a million people now, and I think a million people in 

January. We have come down a little bit for this year. We still 

think there will be much more enrollment in the future, but not 

quite as much more than we had thought. 

Senator CAPITO. As you had originally thought. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. In our last projections. 

DYNAMIC SCORING

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Since I have you here and the House 

has changed their rule 13, clause 8, the dynamic scoring rule. You 

hear a lot of controversy about this. I just came out of the House 

14 years. Subject of great discussion. 

If you would not mind and my colleagues do not mind, would you 

just take a short period of time and tell in layman’s terms what 
32 

the difference between the way you score and a dynamic score 

would be? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, of course, I am happy to do that. In CBO’s 

cost estimates, we take on a whole variety of behavioral responses 

by individuals, by firms, by State governments. What we do not do 

in our estimates is to incorporate changes in people’s behavior that 

would affect the size of the overall economy. We hold overall employment, overall GDP fixed in our estimates. 

We do a substantial amount of work in providing information/ 

analysis of the macroeconomic effects of policy proposals. We do 

this every year in the analysis of the President’s budget. We do this 

for proposals that Chairman Ryan put forward the last few years 

as chairman of the Budget Committee. 

We do those analyses for major pieces of legislation, major proposals, and we do them separately from our basic cost estimates. 

What the House rule does, as you know, is to require CBO to include that sort of macroeconomic feedback in our regular cost estimates for certain pieces of legislation, and in particular for major 

pieces of legislation, legislation that would have effects on spending 

or revenues that exceed a quarter percent of GDP in any era of the 

10 year budget window at the threshold of $40 to $45 billion now. 

We will follow that rule in our estimates for the House. We will 

include those sorts of feedback effects in our estimates for large 

pieces of legislation. 

The closest thing we have done, I think, that has been prominently seen in the Senate was our analysis of immigration legislation the Senate took up a few years ago. A number of years before 

I arrived at CBO and considering comprehensive immigration legislation, people at CBO decided to assume there would be no change 

in the labor force or employment when the legislation was designed 

to increase the number of people in the country in some ways 

would have forced the estimate to be too distorted, so for the immigration legislation, we actually allowed for some macroeconomic 

consequences a number of years ago and then again a few years 

ago when this came up. 

We also did a separate analysis a few years ago as part of our 

analysis of immigration. We had a cost estimate and we had this 

extra analysis to look at even broader macroeconomic effects on 

productivity and saving behavior and so on. 

Under the current House rule, if that legislation were to come up 

in the House, we would include all those effects in the cost estimate for the legislation. 

Senator CAPITO. For the Senate, you were just asked to do that 

in sort of an advisory capacity? Is that correct? Or there is no requirement at all in the Senate? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. There is no specific requirement. Of course, the 

chair or the ranking member of the Budget Committee or other key 

committees can ask us to do that sort of analysis, and we are 

happy to do that. 

We spent a good deal of effort in the past several years improving our modeling of the macroeconomic effects of changes in fiscal 

policy. We understand Congress’ interest in this. The fact that we 

had not included it in cost estimates has not relieved us in our 
33 

minds of the responsibility to be able to do that sort of analysis and 

to do it for major pieces of legislation of the sort I described. 

We have done a lot of modeling work, and we have tried to be 

very transparent about that. There is a collection of working papers 

essentially, maybe eight or nine separate reports, that as a collection explain how we do that sort of analysis, so that you and your 

staff can understand it and so we can receive the scrutiny of outside experts, many of whom we have consulted in the course of 

building these models, but to continue to receive scrutiny in the 

way that we do that sort of modeling so you can understand where 

it is coming from. 

DYNAMIC SCORING IMPACT ON CBO’s STAFF

Senator CAPITO. Assuming this is going to be a larger part of 

what the CBO is going to be asked to do, how do you think that 

is going to affect your workforce? Do you see that as you are going 

to need more people or different types of staff? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. The increase in FTEs, the small increase that 

we have asked for, is partly to build up our staffing in that area. 

We have an excellent staff now. We have done this modeling work. 

It is not that it comes entirely out of the blue. 

We do expect there will be more demand for this sort of work and 

additional resources would help us to meet that demand in a quick 

and efficient way. Part of the challenge here is this sort of analysis 

takes a good deal of time, and if we had even a few more people 

who could do it, then we could respond more quickly to Congress’ 

needs. 

Senator CAPITO. We always want everything yesterday, too. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, ma’am. 

GAO REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Senator CAPITO. I understand. Mr. Dodaro, one last question for 

you. I really appreciate the high quality reports the GAO generates 

and the money savings that have resulted from this. I think there 

is a gap between what we have actually enacted or been able to 

move forward with and what you all have uncovered, so to speak, 

where there could be greater savings. 

Would you have any suggestions for us, either House or the Senate, to be able to look at your recommendations and really achieve 

more cost savings and more efficiencies that your agency has 

brought forward? How would you recommend that we go about 

being better at responding? 

Mr. DODARO. First, I would suggest more oversight hearings. 

Senator Schatz mentioned our high risk list, which has 32 areas on 

it right now. There is a very significant potential for saving billions 

of dollars by addressing those issues. More oversight hearings 

should be guided by the high risk list. 

We also produce a report every year on overlap, duplication, and 

fragmentation in the Federal Government. We add cost savings 

suggestions and revenue enhancements to that list. 

I just testified last week before the Senate Budget Committee. I 

think there could be more attention by the budget committees. I 

mentioned the Bipartisan Budget Act for 2014 and 2015 to avoid 

sequestration. A number of GAO’s recommendations were adopted 
34 

to help avoid sequestration. There were over $23 billion in contributions there. 

I also reach out to the Executive Branch Cabinet officials and encourage them to implement all the recommendations, they can voluntarily. We are going to send letters to all the agency heads in 

the coming months on the top recommendations that are outstanding. I anticipate providing that information to the Congress 

as well so they can use it in appropriation and authorization decisions. 

Right now we have about 6,000 outstanding GAO recommendations. On the whole, over a 4 year period, 80 percent of our recommendations are adopted. There are certain areas, like IT acquisitions, we put on the high risk list. 

In that area in the last 5 years we made 737 recommendations, 

and only 23 percent have been implemented. On the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare issue, we have over 100 outstanding recommendations. Those are two, VA and IT acquisitions, that we 

added to the high risk list. 

I also thank the subcommittee for looking carefully at our request for 40 FTEs. Many would be used to do more work and provide additional recommendations on how to close the tax gap and 

how to get on top of the improper payment issue. 

IMPROPER PAYMENTS

I am very concerned. Last year’s estimate for 2014 was $125 billion in improper payments. These are payments that should not 

have been made or were made in the wrong amounts. That is an 

increase of $19 billion from the prior year. Most of the increase is 

in Medicaid and Medicare. These are the two fastest growing challenges in the Federal Government’s budget. This problem will get 

worse before it will get better. 

I have been saying that for a while, and the additional resources 

would help. 

TAX GAP

The tax gap is $385 billion. We have many outstanding recommendations that Congress could implement that would result in 

increased revenue collection. These are revenues that are due 

under the current structure. We are not talking about tax increases. We are just collecting what should be collected. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. Those are a few of my suggestions. 

Senator CAPITO. I appreciate that. I think there is nothing more 

grinding on a taxpayer than to realize improper payments are 

going in the wrong way, either through fraud, waste, abuse or 

whatever. It really is an insult to the hard working people in this 

country who are paying their taxes and doing the right thing. I appreciate that. 

Senator Schatz. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you for your leadership in this space. 

Chairman Capito, I would be happy to work with you in any way 

to try to help the Senate and Congress overall to try to implement 

all of the recommendations from your high risk list. 
35 

I think this is an opportunity for us to find savings, find revenue, 

and find bipartisan cooperation. 

DYNAMIC SCORING (UNCERTAINTY OF CBO’s ESTIMATES)

Dr. Elmendorf, on the question of dynamic scoring, I am not one 

of those Democrats as allergic to the dynamic scoring approach as 

others. I just have a technical question with respect to how it may 

or may not increase the kind of variability in your cost estimates. 

I have to believe that for your analysts and for you and your successor, it may give you a little bit of heartburn to try to imagine 

macroeconomic impacts of policy and to try to quantify that in a 

way that is not just hazarding a guess. 

I am just wondering how you see this increasing the likelihood 

that you are going to get something badly wrong in the future. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Senator, we are acutely aware of the uncertainty that surrounds many of our estimates. This is a hard business that we are engaged in. The estimates of the macroeconomic 

effects of legislation certainly have substantial uncertainty around 

them, and in recognition of that, when we report those sorts of 

macroeconomic estimates, we generally do so with explicit ranges. 

We provide a central estimate and a higher level and a lower 

level. I would not say higher and lower bounds because the outcomes could be even outside that range. We try to show you and 

your colleagues the range. 

I would emphasize our estimates that do not include macroeconomic feedback also often have a great deal of uncertainty. I 

think it is important for you and your colleagues to understand 

that. 

We put down numbers because the budget process really requires 

numbers that add up, but we always think of them as being in a 

range of some sort, and I would urge you and your colleagues to 

remember that. 

I would urge you and your colleagues to continue to press us to 

try to be clear with you and to quantify where we can that uncertainty as we try to do in these macro estimates. 

Again, I want to say it is not entirely new to us. This analysis 

of the President’s budget each year and our long term budget outlook each year, they look at alternative scenario’s with this sort of 

macroeconomic feedback. 

We draw on the best thinking in the economics profession to do 

that, both in our reading of the papers and in our direct consultation with members of our panels, advisors, and other people. 

We have some confidence that we are giving you the best information that can be provided, but you and we need to remember 

that there is a lot of uncertainty and the uncertainty gets greater 

the further out in time we are asked to look, and it gets greater 

the more stark are the changes in Federal policies. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, both. I really want to say that you 

both represent the best in public service, and I know your agencies 

work very hard and are sometimes criticized. I just want to say 

how much I appreciate both of your public service. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 
36 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I, too, would like to thank both of 

you. I think I have learned a lot and I appreciate you taking the 

time to be here with us today. 

This concludes the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee hearing regarding fiscal year 2016 funding for the CBO 

and GAO. I want to again thank both of you. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Our hearing record will remain open for seven days allowing 

members to submit statements and/or questions for the record, 

which will be sent to the subcommittee by close of business on 

Tuesday, March 17. 

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

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

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

Question. I understand that the fiscal year 2016 budget request includes funding 

for three additional full-time equivalents (FTE’s). Knowing that the salaries and 

benefits associated with FTE’s continue to increase over time, would upgraded, or 

additional, information technology systems be a more cost-efficient means of increasing CBO’s output, rather than hiring new people? 

Answer. In CBO’s view, hiring the additional people would provide the greatest 

value to the Congress. The additional employees would be devoted to analyzing the 

economic effects of Federal tax and spending policies (including ‘‘dynamic’’ effects, 

as required by a new House rule) and healthcare issues. 

Certain needs for information technology were addressed by CBO’s 2014 appropriation: The agency acquired greater storage capacity and advanced servers designed for sophisticated statistical analysis and modeling undertaken by an increasingly wide swath of the agency. At this time, to analyze the ever-changing proposals 

considered by the Congress, CBO’s most pressing need is for talented analysts who 

can determine the modeling approaches that are appropriate for a particular proposal, can develop new models or understand and manipulate existing models, can 

translate legislative language into a set of parameters for use in modeling, and can 

make other adjustments for features of the legislative language that are not amenable to standard modeling. 

Question. What would be the impact to the agency if the committee was not able 

to provide funding for these three additional FTE’s in fiscal year 2016? 

Answer. With its current staffing, CBO cannot meet all of the Congress’s requests 

for estimates and analyses, particularly in the area of healthcare, and there is an 

increasing desire for the agency to analyze the economic effects of Federal tax and 

spending policies, as evidenced by the new House rule and a similar provision in 

the Senate-passed budget resolution. Without funding for three additional positions 

in fiscal year 2016, fewer of those requests would be fulfilled, and some such analyses would be less timely than desired. For instance, CBO would anticipate preparing fewer reports with policy options than hoped and being able to complete 

fewer informal estimates of the effects of bills before markup by committee. Even 

with the additional staffing, the volume of analyses and estimates that CBO could 

provide would fall far short of the total number of congressional requests. 

Question. I understand that CBO’s budget request for fiscal year 2016 includes 

an additional full-time equivalent (FTE) for the purpose of conducting dynamic scoring analysis of certain legislation pursuant to the new House rule XIII, clause 8. 

Why is an additional FTE necessary to help fulfill this requirement when CBO already has a Macroeconomic Analysis Division? Are any other changes required within the Macroeconomic Analysis Division in order to comply with the new House 

rule? If so, what are the costs associated with those changes? 

Answer. The agency has excellent analysts in its Macroeconomic Analysis Division, who have built—and continue to build and refine—sophisticated models used 

as part of such dynamic analyses. Those analyses also involve contributions from 

analysts in other divisions. Although CBO has done a good deal of work to develop 

the tools necessary to estimate the macroeconomic effects of legislation, such estimates can be quite complicated and time-consuming because bills can affect a num-
37 

ber of key economic variables and each piece of legislation can affect those variables 

in different ways. Under the House rule, CBO will have to do more such analyses. 

Because all of the analysts in the Macroeconomic Analysis Division were fully engaged in work for the Congress before the House imposed this new requirement, 

CBO expects that one additional analyst in its Macroeconomic Analysis Division 

would be very valuable in helping the agency to meet its additional responsibilities 

under the House rule in a timely way. 

CBO will continue to evaluate whether it has sufficient resources to implement 

the House rule and any further requirements that may be imposed by the budget 

resolution. At this point, the agency is uncertain whether additional resources, beyond those already requested, will be needed. 

Question. If enacted into law, would any of the provisions in the Senate bill S. 

200 require CBO to make further adjustments to its Macroeconomic Analysis Division? Would additional FTE’s be necessary, would upgraded software systems be required, or would it be necessary to purchase additional data? If so, what are the 

costs associated with those changes? 

Answer. The analyses required under S. 200—to prepare, to the extent practicable, macroeconomic analysis of major revenue legislation—would generally be 

prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). However, analyses 

of major legislation affecting the revenue provisions of the Affordable Care Act and 

certain other tax legislation affecting healthcare would probably be undertaken 

jointly by JCT and CBO because the two agencies usually work together on such 

analyses. Such work would affect multiple divisions within CBO, not just the Macroeconomic Analysis Division. The additional full-time-equivalent positions that CBO 

has already requested would be helpful in meeting the requirements of S. 200, although, as mentioned, the agency is uncertain whether resources beyond those 

would be needed. 

Question. The House rule requires these estimates to cover the current 10-year 

budget window and the following 20-year period; while the Senate bill requires the 

estimates to cover the current 10-year window and the following three 10-year periods. Will it be more difficult to provide this analysis for 30 years beyond the first 

10-year window as opposed to just 20 years beyond the first 10-year window? 

Answer. The House rule requires a qualitative assessment of budgetary effects in 

the 20-year period beyond the usual 10-year window; S. 200 would require quantitative estimates of changes in economic output, employment, interest rates, the 

capital stock, and tax revenues over the 30-year period beyond the current 10-year 

budget window. (S. 200 would also require estimates of changes in employment during the 10-year budget window, which would involve additional analysis beyond that 

needed to fulfill the requirements of the House rule.) Providing qualitative estimates 

is not as difficult as preparing quantitative ones. The ability to do the latter will 

vary depending upon various factors, such as the time horizon involved, the amount 

of time available to conduct the analysis, the complexity of the legislation being considered, the capability of the tools that the CBO has to assess the legislation’s effects, and the agency’s judgment about the uncertainty of the analysis. 

Providing estimates that look farther into the future would be more difficult and 

time-consuming. To undertake analyses of effects between 30 and 40 years in the 

future, CBO would need to assess various additional factors, such as how different 

trends affecting estimates for components of legislation that were projected for the 

previous decade might change and how aspects of the legislation that were not binding in previous periods might begin to have effects. Estimates that extend beyond 

10 years are generally quite uncertain, and the farther out they go, the more uncertain they become and the more difficult that uncertainty is to evaluate. Hence, when 

quantifying budgetary effects beyond the first decade, CBO often presents them as 

a percentage of the size of the economy (in part because economic growth itself is 

a source of uncertainty). 

Question. The House rule requires that this analysis be made part of the standard 

CBO cost estimate, but the Senate bill only requires these estimates to be part of 

a supplemental analysis. Practically speaking, is there a difference in the work performed by CBO to provide this analysis as part of the standard cost estimate vs. 

providing it as a supplemental analysis? 

Answer. In either case, CBO will provide all of the typical information provided 

today plus additional information about macroeconomic effects. The way CBO presents the budgetary impact of the macroeconomic effects of a proposal—either as 

part of a cost estimate or as a supplemental analysis—would not fundamentally 

change the work performed by the agency. However, when dealing with similar legislation, meeting two different requirements for presentation would have the practical effect of adding some effort and time. 
38 

Question. I understand that CBO is again requesting authorizing language that 

would allow no more than 50 percent of its unobligated balances to remain available 

for a second fiscal year beyond the year in which it was appropriated. Why is this 

necessary? What is CBO unable to do with its funds in the year in which they are 

appropriated that requires carrying them forward? 

Answer. To ensure that the agency does not obligate more funds than have been 

appropriated, CBO sets aside funds to cover unexpected expenses late in the year. 

When such expenses do not arise, some funds remain unobligated at the end of the 

year. The authorizing language would provide the agency the flexibility of using a 

portion of those unobligated balances in the following year to pay for data or other 

goods or services—such as additional information technology services—that are critical but unforeseen and therefore not included in the budget. 

In addition, some obligations made at the end of the year do not result in outlays—when costs turn out to be lower than the maximum obligated amounts. The 

authorizing language would allow CBO to obligate a portion of those funds again 

so that they could be used, as originally intended, to sustain CBO’s operations. The 

flexibility that CBO is seeking is based on general provisions that appear in the Financial Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriation bills. 

Question. What would be the consequences to CBO of not providing this authorizing language in fiscal year 2016? 

Answer. If the requested flexibility regarding unobligated balances is not provided, CBO will have to use fiscal year 2016 funding to pay for any critical but unforeseen needs—perhaps additional data about healthcare—and then defer other activities included in the budget, such as the maintenance or replacement of information technology equipment. Moreover, obligated funds in excess of costs would continue to be unavailable to the agency. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator CAPITO. The next hearing of this subcommittee will be 

on Thursday, March 12, at 9:45 in Dirksen 124, where we will hear 

testimony from the Secretary of the Senate, the Senate Sergeant At 

Arms, the Chief of the Capitol Police, regarding the fiscal year 

2016 budget request for those agencies. 

Until then, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., Tuesday, March 10, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(39) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2015 

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

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Capito and Schatz. 

U.S. SENATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIE E. ADAMS, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MARY SUIT JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

ILEANA GARCIA, FINANCIAL CLERK 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

Senator CAPITO. The subcommittee will come to order. 

And I would like to welcome everyone to the second of our fiscal 

year 2016 budget hearings for the various agencies under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. 

We have before us today the Secretary of the Senate, Julie E. 

Adams. We have the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Frank Larkin, and 

we have the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, Kim Dine. Welcome 

to all of you. 

I would like to start by welcoming, first of all, Julie Adams and 

Frank Larkin, into their new positions in the Senate, as they were 

just sworn in when we were sworn in—when I was sworn in on 

January 6 of this year. And I hope you are settling into your critical roles that you play with this historic institution. I look forward 

to any initial assessments of your office that you may be able to 

share with only 8 weeks on the job. 

And, of course, the subcommittee welcomes back the Chief who, 

after a little over 2 years on the job, now has the most seniority 

on the table. 

Thank you for being here with us today for this important discussion on how the agencies you represent are planning to move 

forward in the next fiscal year. 
40 

I would also like to thank you for hosting the ranking member 

and I both over at your headquarters, Chief, with the Sergeant at 

Arms and then the Secretary of the Senate Office to really see 

where you work, how you work, and meet a lot of the folks that 

you work with. So I appreciate that. That is very useful. 

The Secretary of the Senate’s office is requesting a total of $34 

million, which is $3 million, or 9 percent, above the fiscal year 2015 

enacted level. Of the total requested, $25 million is for salaries and 

benefits, which would maintain current services at a full-time 

equivalent (FTE) of 225. The request for the expenses is increased 

by $2.5 million above the enacted level due to the modernization 

of the financial management information system. 

The Sergeant at Arms total request is $206 million, an increase 

of approximately $8 million, or 4 percent, above the fiscal year 

2015 enacted level. The request includes $72 million for salaries 

and benefits, which would maintain the current FTE of 892. The 

request for the expenses account is an increase of $5.7 million over 

the enacted level of 2015. The requested increases and offsets within the Sergeant at Arms budget support the need for a major information technology refresh of hardware and software and increased 

storage capacity for members and committees and a constituent 

mail system upgrade. There is a consistent theme here and it is 

called IT. 

Finally, the Capitol Police request totals $379 million, an increase of $31 million, or 9 percent, above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. Of the funding requested, $307 million is for salaries 

and benefits to maintain the current sworn officer level of 1,775 

and the current civilian staff of 370. The request for the expense 

account is an increase of $10 million above the 2015 level. This increase would restore full annual funding to previous functions and 

existing needs that have been put off in recent years due to significant budget constraints such as lifecycle replacement of information technology systems, equipment, and training. 

I noticed a theme in all three of your budgets, which is holding 

personnel flat and prioritizing funding increases for the IT systems 

and equipment. I look forward to exploring these needs with you 

and the other members of the subcommittee today and over the 

next several months as we move through the fiscal year 2016 process. 

So I would like to turn this over to my ranking member, Senator 

Schatz, for any opening remarks he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chair Capito. 

And thank you, all of you, for being here for this hearing. And 

I want to thank you, and I think it is fair to speak for all members 

to thank all of you personally for making this institution run so 

well. You are all institutionalists. You keep us safe. You keep the 

place running. You make the Senate the Senate, and we are all 

very, very appreciative of the work that you do even as we conduct 

our oversight responsibilities. 

It has already been a pleasure working with Chair Capito as her 

ranking member, and I am looking forward to this conversation. 
41 

Your three agencies work closely to make sure that the Senate 

can operate safely, openly, and efficiently. They play a critical role 

in assuring the continued operation of an open and democratic 

Congress. The funding we provide to the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Secretary of the Senate makes sure that 

the American people have safe and reliable access to our buildings, 

our proceedings, and our records. 

I look forward to examining your budgets closely today and working with you throughout the year as we conduct ongoing oversight. 

I would like to discuss how we can combat evolving threats to our 

open Capitol campus, like drones that could be used by criminals 

or terrorists and cyber attacks. I am also interested to learn how 

the agencies testifying today may have to adapt if the current 

Budget Control Act spending caps remain in place. 

Thanks very much. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

And now I would like to ask the witnesses, beginning with Secretary Adams, to give a brief opening statement of approximately 

5 minutes. As you all know, the written testimony of each witness 

will be printed in full in the hearing record. Secretary Adams. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JULIE E. ADAMS

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Chairman Capito and Senator Schatz, 

for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Office of the Secretary 

and its dedicated employees. 

I ask that my full statement, which includes our department 

summaries, be submitted for the record. 

Senator CAPITO. Without objection. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

With me today are Mary Suit Jones, the Assistant Secretary, and 

Ileana Garcia, the Financial Clerk, who have worked closely with 

your subcommittee over the years. I am also joined by many of our 

department heads. 

Before turning to my formal remarks, I want to take a moment 

to thank my predecessor, Nancy Erickson, Assistant Secretary 

Sheila Dwyer, and other members of the executive team for their 

assistance during my transition. Their graciousness is a testament 

to the strength and traditions of the Office of the Secretary. 

Since taking the oath of office 2 months ago, I have had the distinct privilege of meeting the staff that comprise the 26 departments of the Secretary’s Office. It is a truly remarkable group of 

people and one with whom I am honored to be associated. Their institutional knowledge, devotion to public service, and expertise 

serve the Senate well, and they provide remarkable continuity in 

times of change. 

In the last year, some department heads retired from the Secretary’s Office after dedicating nearly 130 years of combined service 

to the Senate. Among them, Chris Doby, the Financial Clerk, and 

Kathie Alvarez, the Legislative Clerk. The Senate is a better place 

because of their many contributions. I am proud that our departments continue to be led by seasoned professionals who also have 

lengthy Senate service. 

I would also like to note our strong and continuing partnership 

with the Senate Sergeant at Arms. From continuity programs to 
42 

procurement, I am proud of our friendly and collaborative working 

relationship. Our budget request for fiscal year 2016 is $31,327,000. The re- quest includes $25,077,000 in salary costs and $6,250,000 for the 

operating budget of the Office of the Secretary. The salary budget 

represents an increase of $305,000 over the fiscal year 2015 budget 

as a result of the costs associated with the potential cost-of-living 

adjustment. The operating budget of the Office of the Secretary remains flat at $6.25 million, of which $4.35 million is firewalled for 

the administration of the Senate Information Services program. 

That was assumed by this office in 2011 and has not changed. In addition, I am requesting $2.5 million in no-year funds to 

begin the modernization of the Senate Disbursing Office’s Financial 

Management Information System, also known as FMIS. This is a 

6-year phased project that will require additional no-year funding 

requests. To promote transparency, I am requesting that this funding be firewalled. 

FMIS is a collection of financial applications used by Senate offices to submit and pay bills, manage office funds, and report to 

both internal and external agencies. It is used by approximately 

140 Senate offices and has over 4,000 users. The current FMIS, implemented over 15 years ago in preparation for Y2K, utilizes a complex architecture, increasingly expensive mainframe technologies, 

and a variety of software that may only be enhanced through costly 

and time-consuming custom development. The first phase of the 

project will focus on budget and reporting modernization. The majority of changes will happen behind the scenes as improvements 

are made to the FMIS infrastructure. 

One piece of the budget modernization that Senate offices will 

see is an improved module to perform payroll projections, enabling 

offices to better forecast and plan their budgets. This is something 

that I, as a former Senate administrative director, would have 

greatly benefited from. So I hope office managers will find it useful. 

Throughout the process, user input will be important to ensure 

that the modernized system fully meets the needs of the Senate 

community, and I have stressed the importance of this to my team. 

While the modernization project is underway, the current FMIS 

platform will be maintained and operational. 

FMIS is significant, but just one component of the office’s vast 

mission. Since 1789, the Office of the Secretary has provided support to the Senate in three areas: legislative, administrative, and 

financial. I would like to highlight some of our staff’s accomplishments in each area. 

In December of last year, the Parliamentarian and the Office of 

Web Technology debuted the electronic Senate precedents database 

on Webster. The system currently contains approximately 275 

precedents from seven of the most frequently used chapters of 

‘‘Riddick’s Senate Procedure.’’ This will continue to be a big task as 

the parliamentarians make updates and additions for the database. 

The Senate Stationery Room continued working with Member offices to establish accounts for the online flag ordering system, using 

pay.gov. This is a convenient service that Members can provide to 

their constituents interested in purchasing American flags. Fortythree offices were using pay.gov at the end of 2014, up from 13 of-
43 

fices a year ago, and usage is expected to expand even further this 

year. 

The Disbursing Office continues to move offices away from a 

paper voucher submittal process to one where imaging and electronic signatures are utilized. Forty-four offices were using the 

technology at the end of last year, and more offices, including new 

Member offices, will be included moving forward. Implementation 

of the new technology has also led to a decrease in the volume of 

paper and the time it takes for vouchers to be approved. 

The Historical Office commemorated the 50th anniversary of the 

passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Senate historians developed an extensive multi-media exhibit on Senate.gov, authored articles describing the Senate’s role in the passage of the landmark 

legislation, and presented specialized talks and tours. The four 

public talks drew capacity crowds and the final two discussions 

were broadcast by C–SPAN. 

And finally, before the start of every new Congress, the Secretary’s Office is responsible for reviewing certificates of election 

for compliance with Senate rules, and planning and implementing 

an orientation for newly elected Members and their designated 

staff. Last year’s orientation lasted 3 days, and Senators-elect and 

their spouses became familiar with the Senate procedure and history, participated in question and answer sessions with current 

Members, and were provided ethics and security briefings. 

I am honored to serve in this position, and I look forward to 

working with you and your staff in the coming year. I appreciate 

your support for the Office of the Secretary and welcome any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JULIE E. ADAMS

BUDGET REQUEST 

I would first like to thank the subcommittee for their ongoing support of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate’s budget and mandated systems. I am requesting 

a fiscal year 2016 budget of $31,327,000. The request includes $25,077,000 in salary 

costs and $6,250,000 for the operating budget of the Office of the Secretary. The salary budget represents an increase of $305,000 over the fiscal year 2015 budget as 

a result of the costs associated with a cost of living adjustment. The operating budget of the Office of the Secretary remains flat at $6,250,000, of which $4,350,000 is 

for the administration of the Senate Information Services Program (SIS) that was 

assumed by this office in 2011 and has not changed. 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE 

Items Amount available 

fiscal year 2015 

Budget estimates 

fiscal year 2016 Difference 

Departmental operating budget: 

Executive office ................................................................................. $500,000 $500,000 ........................

Administrative services ..................................................................... 1,251,600 1,251,600 ........................

Senate Information Service (SIS) ...................................................... 4,350,000 4,350,000 ........................

Legislative services ........................................................................... 148,400 148,400 ........................

Total operating budget ................................................................. 6,250,000 6,250,000 ........................

In addition, I am requesting $2.5 million in no year funds for the modernization 

of one of the critical Senate systems, the Financial Management Information System 

(FMIS). This is a 6-year phased project that will require additional no year funding 

requests. 
44 

PROJECT REQUEST 

Item Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016 Difference 

FMIS Modernization Project ........................................................................ ........................ $2,500,000 $2,500,000 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (FMIS) MODERNIZATION PROJECT

The Financial Management Information System (FMIS) is used by approximately 

140 Senate offices and has over 4,000 active users. FMIS is a collection of financial 

applications used by Senate offices to submit and pay bills, manage office funds, and 

report to both internal offices and external agencies. The current FMIS, implemented over 15 years ago, utilizes a complex architecture, increasingly expensive 

mainframe technologies, and a variety of software that may only be enhanced 

through costly and time consuming custom development. 

During 2014, the Disbursing Office updated FMIS applications to the extent possible. However, these efforts are quickly being outpaced by newer versions of operating systems, browsers and other end user software, which are not compatible with 

current FMIS applications. The Disbursing Office has planned an FMIS Modernization Project that will: 

—Improve financial system supportability and flexibility; 

—Address business requirements not met by the existing system; and 

—Continue to bring the Senate closer to realizing its vision of an integrated, 

auditable, paperless financial system. 

The first phase of the FMIS modernization, scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2016, 

includes two major steps: 

—Budget Modernization.—This step will replace multiple budget applications and 

manual processes with a single Senate-wide modern budget application used by 

many Federal agencies. Also, it includes the replacement of one of the existing 

payroll modules, which is used to perform payroll projections and which is expected to retire in April 2018. 

—Reporting Modernization.—This step will streamline and transition financial reports to a consolidated data warehouse to include minimizing end user impacts 

during the FMIS modernization. 

The FMIS modernization project is a major endeavor for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. For fiscal year 2016, a total of $2.5 million in no year funding 

is requested to initiate the first two steps in the FMIS modernization project. The 

flexibility provided by no year funding is important to the success of the modernization project due to its complexity, and the unique Senate technical environment and 

business requirements. In addition, no year funding provides greater flexibility for 

contracting options. Further, unobligated funds can be utilized to offset any further 

funding requests. To promote transparency in the FMIS Project, the requested funding will be fire-walled from the office’s operating budget. 

The Disbursing Office’s business case outlines the full scope of the FMIS Modernization Project. The major phases and timeline of the proposed modernization effort are outlined in the table that follows: 

Date Business Area Modernization Approach and Rationale 

Fiscal year 2016–2017 ...... Budget .............................. Replace multiple existing budget applications and manual processes with a commercial software package widely used by Federal Agencies to: 

—Allow for more efficient and effective budget planning 

and budget execution tracking; 

—Enable what-if budget analyses at the Senate and individual office levels; and 

—Facilitate direct integration between the payroll and financial system. 

Fiscal year 2016–2021 ...... Reporting .......................... Streamline and modernize the reporting infrastructure to prepare 

for and minimize impacts of the financial system modernization, 

and: 

—Reduce the volume of reporting data; 

—Eliminate unused and redundant reports; 

—Consolidate numerous, disparate report processes; 

—Ensure the consistency and accuracy of historic data; and 

—Provide greater flexibility for users to customize the data 

they view and receive. 
45 

Date Business Area Modernization Approach and Rationale 

Fiscal year 2017–2018 ...... Accounting ....................... Replace the mainframe–based general ledger system with a 

commercial software package, which will: 

—Allow the Senate to retire the expensive and increasingly 

difficult to support mainframe hardware and software; 

—Implement a modern general ledger which is consistent 

with all current Federal financial standards and reporting 

requirements; and 

—Enhance the Senate’s ability to maintain the core component of the financial system and the source of the statutory semi–annual Report of the Secretary of the Senate. 

Fiscal year 2018–2019 ...... Procurement to Payment .. Replace the highly customized procurement to payment applications with commercial software, where possible, subject to a 

thorough alternatives analysis. This will allow the Senate to: 

—Continue to meet unique Senate business needs while 

also addressing a number of business requirements not 

currently met by the existing applications; 

—Enhance the Senate’s ability to administer and support financial system applications; 

—Enable more rapid deployment of user–requested changes; 

and 

—Facilitate tighter integration of all procurement to payment applications to enhance Senate financial statement 

production. 

Fiscal year 2019 ................. Data Sharing .................... Automate interfaces with outside Agencies, such as the U.S. 

Treasury, to: 

—Reduce errors in Senate reporting; and 

—Eliminate the manual effort required to support daily and 

monthly external reporting. 

Fiscal year 2019–2021 ...... Asset Management .......... Replace the existing Asset Management application with a commercial software module that will: 

—Enable direct integration with financial system; and 

—Eliminate redundant processes and data, increasing the 

efficiency and accuracy of the Senate’s asset tracking. 

Fiscal year 2019–2021 ...... Archival Tools ................... Implement data archival tools to: 

—Reduce the costs and potential application performance 

issues associated with maintaining large volumes of financial data; and 

—Ensure that all relevant data is archived together and 

may be restored together as needed to support Senate financial operations 

In addition to the $2.5 million funding requested for fiscal year 2016, the table 

below outlines the additional funding required for software and implementation 

services for this project. 

Funding 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 

Implementation/Acquisition ..................................................... 2.5M 4M 3.5M 3M 2.5M 2.5M 18M 

Because of the scope and complexity of this project and best practices for system 

implementations, an FMIS Project Office within the Office of the Secretary will be 

established to oversee and manage the effort to ensure the project remains on schedule and within the budget established for the project. 

The FMIS Project Office will work in collaboration with Sergeant at Arms (SAA) 

functional and technical staff, as well as representatives from FMIS stakeholder 

groups, including Member Offices, Committees, the Committee on Rules and Administration audit staff, and Disbursing Accounts Payable and Accounting staff, 

throughout the modernization effort to ensure financial applications are supportable 

and maintainable in both the near and long term. This will ensure that the modernized system fully meets Senate user requirements throughout the implementation 

period, and that end user impacts are minimized. 
46 

IMPLEMENTING MANDATED SYSTEMS

Two systems critical to our operation are mandated by law, the Financial Management Information System (FMIS) and the Legislative Information System (LIS), and 

I would like to spend a few moments on each to highlight recent progress. 

Update on current status of Financial Management Information System (FMIS) 

During calendar year 2014, Disbursing implemented the following releases: 

—FMIS 13.3, April 2014: Modernized office, SAA, Committee on Rules and Administration audit staff, and Disbursing document inboxes, moving functionality 

from an outdated legacy framework to a standardized framework, correcting 

over 85 user reported defects related to these functions, and implemented imaging support for additional document types including invoices and Expense Summary Reports (ESRs); and —FMIS 13.3.1 through FMIS 13.3.3, May-November 2014: Implemented performance enhancements, and defect corrections to support imaging and new versions 

of Oracle’s java client to facilitate continued Senate-wide rollout of paperless 

workflow. 

In addition, work continued related to document imaging and electronic signatures in FMIS, in the following phases: —Phase 1: Imaging-only pilot (completed in 2011); —Phase 2: Office imaging and signatures pilot (completed in 2012); full rollout beginning with new offices (completed rollout to 44 offices, Committee on Rules 

and Administration audit staff, and Disbursing’s accounts payable and accounting staff through 2014); and —Phase 3: Planning and development to support imaging and signatures for SAA 

and staffer users, including: 

—Imaging to support invoices and associated vouchers for SAA and the Secretary (completed development in 2014; pilot planned for the Fall of 2015); 

and 

—Imaging to support staffers creating ESRs (completed development in 2014; 

pilot planned for the Summer of 2015). 

In October 2014, we implemented FMIS changes to support in-house printing of 

payroll checks to meet Disbursing requirements not met by Treasury and to standardize Senate payment processing procedures. 

During 2014, the Disbursing Office continued to work with the SAA to extend the 

life of existing FMIS applications to ensure ongoing support of Senate business processes. This included upgrades to the WebSphere application server to support 

WebFMIS and digital signing applications and eliminating or repurposing underutilized regions in the mainframe to streamline support and associated costs. 

During the remainder of fiscal year 2015 and beyond, the following FMIS activities are anticipated: —Imaging and digital signatures.—Continue with Senate-wide rollout of imaging 

and digital signatures for the remaining Member Offices and Committees; 

—Implement two FMIS Releases— —FMIS 14.1 (planned for the Summer of 2015).—Modernization of voucher creation and review functions used by Member Offices, Committees, Leadership, 

the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, SAA, Committee on Rules and Administration, and Disbursing to address user requested changes, enhance 

supportability and ensure compatibility with modern browsers; and —FMIS 14.2 (planned for the Winter of 2015).—Modernization of additional document types, such as requisitions, purchase orders, invoices and receiving reports used by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate and the SAA to address user requested changes, enhance supportability and ensure compatibility with modern browsers; 

—Treasury reporting requirement.—Implement required changes to support Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) and Business Event Type Code (BETC) reporting; 

—Senate Payroll System (SPS).—Continue to work with the SAA technical staff 

and SPS Contracting Office Technical Representative (COTR) on the implementation of a self-service pilot and upgrade PeopleSoft to version 9.2; and 

—Disaster recovery.—Conduct a multi-day test of FMIS failover and failback. 

We continue to prioritize requirements to extend the life of existing FMIS applications and their platforms to allow time to implement FMIS modernization in phases. 

Update on current status of Legislative Information System (LIS) Project 

The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system (2 U.S.C. 6577) 

that provides desktop access to the content and status of legislative information and 

supporting documents. In addition, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 181, a program was estab-
47 

lished to provide for 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. 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. 

Extensible Markup Language (XML) has been accepted as the primary data 

standard to be used for the exchange of legislative documents and information. Following the implementation of the LIS, the LIS Project Office shifted its focus to the 

data standards program and established the LIS Augmentation Project (LISAP). 

The overarching goal of the LISAP is to provide a Senate-wide implementation and 

transition to XML for the authoring and exchange of legislative documents. 

The LIS Project Office continued to provide support to the Office of the Senate 

Legislative Counsel (SLC); the Committee on Appropriations; the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and the Senate Enrolling Clerk in their use 

of the XML authoring application, Legislative Editing in XML Application (LEXA) 

for drafting, engrossing, and enrolling. With the addition of the Commerce Committee drafters, all Senate measures in the 113th Congress were produced in XML. 

In addition, the Government Publishing Office (GPO) uses LEXA to complete measures for printing. Several new features and fixes were added in LEXA releases to 

improve the drafting process. 

The LIS Project Office has been working with staff from GPO and the Legislative 

Computer Systems (LCS) in the Office of the House Clerk to create and print committee reports in XML. This office released a LEXA committee report application 

to the Commerce Committee in 2013, and the committee drafters were able to create 

several sections of their committee reports using the LEXA application. In 2014, additional LEXA enhancements allowed the committee drafters to create almost all 

committee report sections in XML by using direct input, copy/paste from Word documents, and copy/paste from Lexis/Nexis. The office will next work with the editorial 

and printing staff of the Committee on Appropriations to begin creating committee 

reports in XML. 

Other enhancements to LEXA in the past year included new features for drafting 

amendments, improvements in drafting and printing for the Appropriations Committee, and new templates for the Enrolling Clerk. 

Two other group projects with GPO and LCS include participants from the Law 

Revision Counsel and the Senate and House Legislative Counsels. The first project 

with the Law Revision Counsel will result in applications to convert and maintain 

the U.S. Code in an XML format. The second project with the Legislative Counsels 

continues work toward the editing and printing of the compilations of existing law 

in their XML format. As of early December 2014, all compilations are now edited 

and maintained in XML. Printing of XML compilations continues to improve. 

The LIS Project Office is also monitoring and participating in GPO’s project to replace Microcomp with a new composition system that can directly ingest XML data 

without having to convert it to another format before printing. 

The LIS Project Office will continue to support all Senate offices using LEXA and 

will continue to work with the House, GPO, and the Library of Congress on projects 

and issues that impact the legislative process and data standards for exchange. The 

office will continue to produce enhancements to LEXA and to seek out new technologies to improve the production of legislative documents. 

LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 

The Legislative operations of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate provide 

support essential to Senators in carrying out their daily Chamber activities as well 

as the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. Legislative Services consists of 

the following departments: Bill Clerk, Captioning Services, Daily Digest, Enrolling 

Clerk, Executive Clerk, Journal Clerk, Legislative Clerk, Official Reporters of Debates and Parliamentarian. The average length of Senate service among the Secretary’s Legislative Department heads is more than 20 years. 

The Secretary’s Office maintains an exceptionally good working relationship with 

the Government Publishing Office (GPO) and seeks to provide the best service possible to meet the needs of the Senate. GPO continues to respond in a timely manner 

to the Secretary’s request, through the Legislative staff, for the printing of bills and 

reports, including the expedited printing of priority matters for the Senate Chamber. 
48 

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) and 

the Amendment Tracking System (ATS). The Bill Clerk records actions of the Senate with regard to bills, resolutions, reports, amendments, cosponsors, public law 

numbers, and recorded votes. The Bill Clerk is responsible for preparing for print 

all measures introduced, received, submitted, and reported in the Senate. The Bill 

Clerk also assigns numbers to all Senate bills and resolutions. All the information 

received in this office comes directly from the Senate floor in written form within 

moments of the action involved, so the Bill Clerk’s Office is generally regarded as 

the most timely and most accurate source of legislative information. 

CAPTIONING SERVICES

The Office of Captioning Services provides real-time captioning of Senate floor 

proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and unofficial electronic transcripts of 

Senate Floor proceedings to Senate offices on Webster. 

Captioning Services strives to provide the highest quality closed captions and is 

comprised of seasoned and respected captioners. The overall accuracy average rate 

for the Office is above 99 percent, the 21st year in a row the Office has achieved 

that level. Overall caption quality is monitored through daily translation data reports, monitoring of captions in real-time, and review of caption files on Webster. 

In an effort to decrease paper consumption and printing costs, accuracy reviews and 

reports were primarily completed in electronic form. 

The real-time searchable Closed Caption Log, available to Senate offices on Webster, continues to be an invaluable tool for the entire Senate community. Legislative 

Floor staff, Cloakroom staff, and member offices in particular continue to depend 

upon its availability, reliability, and contents to help them in the performance of 

their everyday duties. In conjunction with the Senate Recording Studio, a complete 

overhaul of the Caption Log was designed in 2012–2013. Roll-out of this new digital 

version occurred in 2014 and is available through the Senate Recording Studio 

VideoVault Browser. In addition, Captioning Services purchased new hardware, 

which increased the efficiency of the office. 

DAILY DIGEST

The Office of the Daily Digest is responsible for publication of 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. The Office compiles an accounting 

of all meetings of Senate committees, subcommittees, joint committees and committees of conference. 

The Office enters all Senate and Joint committee scheduling data into the Senate’s Web-based 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. The office also enters all official actions taken by Senate committees on legislation, nominations, and treaties into LIS. 

The Office publishes a listing of all legislation which has become public law, as 

well as 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. The ‘‘Resume’’ is published on the first legislative day of each month in the Daily Digest. 

All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and conferences) are 

scheduled through the Office of the Daily Digest and are published in the Congressional Record, on the Digest’s Web site on Senate.gov, and in LIS. Meeting outcomes 

are also published by the Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each day and 

continuously updated on the Web site. 

The Office of the Daily Digest publishes a ‘‘20-Year Comparison of Senate Legislative Activity’’ which can be found at: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/ 

yearlycomparison.pdf. 

ENROLLING CLERK

The Office of the Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, inputs amendments and prints all legislation passed by the Senate prior to its transmittal to the 
49 

House of Representatives, the National Archives, the White House, the United 

States Claims Court, and the Secretary of State. Electronic files of all measures engrossed and enrolled in the Senate are transmitted daily by the enrolling clerks to 

GPO for overnight distribution and public Web access. 

The Enrolling Clerk’s Office keeps the original official copies of bills, resolutions, 

and appointments from the Senate Floor through the end of each Congress. 

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 the daily 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. 

The online historical archive of Senate Executive Calendars was completed, with 

all available issues from 1943 to the present now digitized and made publicly available on Senate.gov through the collaborative efforts of the Executive Clerk, the Library, the Office of Web Technology, and the LIS Project Office. 

A nightly report of executive nominations was developed and automated by Web 

Technology in conjunction with staff from member offices and the SAA. This included mapping individual nominations with their assigned calendar numbers. Previously, this information was unavailable in a machine readable format. The new 

report provides a user friendly and machine readable version in Extensible Markup 

Language (XML) that is updated nightly. 

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 content of the Senate Journal is governed by 

Senate rule IV, and is approved by the Senate on a daily basis. The Senate Journal 

is published each calendar year. 

The Journal staff take 90-minute turns at the rostrum in the Senate Chamber, 

noting the following 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 of the Senate 

Journal. Compilation is efficiently accomplished through utilization of the LIS Senate Journal Authoring System. The Journal Clerk completed the production of the 

2013 volume of the Senate Journal in 2014. It is anticipated that work on the 2014 

volume will conclude by August 2015. 

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 staff 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 staff is responsible for verifying the accuracy of information entered into LIS by the various offices of the Secretary. 

During the second session, the Legislative Clerk requested GPO to make available 

online Senate publications produced by the legislative staff. The publications include 

the Committee and Subcommittee Assignments of Senators and the Class List prepared and printed by the Legislative Clerk and the Senate Journal prepared and 

printed by the Journal Clerk. These publications are also now available on Webster. 
50 

OFFICIAL REPORTERS OF DEBATES

The Office of the Official Reporters of Debates is responsible for the stenographic 

reporting, transcribing, and editing of the Senate Floor proceedings for publication 

in the Congressional Record. The Chief Reporter acts as the editor-in-chief and oversees the production of the Senate portion of the Congressional Record to ensure its 

accuracy and consistency to Senate parliamentary rules and procedures. 

When the Senate is in session, the electronic and paper transcripts of the Floor 

proceedings of the Senate begin to go to GPO in the early evening, and the last delivery occurs approximately 3 hours after the Senate adjourns or recesses for the 

day. The Congressional Record is published in paperback form and online, and is 

available to the public on the next business day. 

In 2014, the Office purchased new software for the official reporters and expert 

transcribers and new steno writers for the reporters in the Office, which has increased the Office’s efficiency in the production of the Congressional Record. 

The Morning Business Editor sits in the Chamber, recording daily Floor activity 

of the Senate for the Official Reporters of Debates. The work includes compiling all 

materials printed in the Morning Business section of the Congressional Record. 

PARLIAMENTARIAN

The Office of the Parliamentarian 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 and 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, and 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. A parliamentarian is always present on the Senate Floor when the Senate is in session, 

ready to assist the Presiding Officer in their 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 when performing 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 time on the Senate Floor when time is limited or controlled under the provisions of time agreements, statutes, or standing orders. The parliamentarians keep 

track of amendments offered to the legislation pending on the Senate Floor, assess 

them for germaneness and other possible points of order, and review countless other 

amendments that are never offered in the same regard. 

The Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral to the appropriate 

committees all legislation introduced in the Senate and 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. The office worked 

extensively with Senators and their staffs to advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of countless drafts of legislation, and evaluated the jurisdictional effect 

of proposed modifications in drafting. 

Following the Senate elections in 2014, the Parliamentarian’s Office was heavily 

involved in the review of certificates of election and appointment for Senators in the 

class of 2015. 

In December of 2014, the parliamentarians debuted the Electronic Senate Precedents database, which can be found on Webster. This system currently contains approximately 275 precedents from 7 of the most frequently used chapters of Riddick’s 

Senate Procedure. Those chapters are: Amendments Between the Houses, Appropriations, Cloture, Conferences and Conference Reports, Recommit, Reconsideration 

and Suspension. The precedents on the database augment and update the material 

found in Riddick’s, which was published 23 years ago. The existing chapters will be 

added to from time to time to keep the material current, and new chapters will be 

added as updates are completed by the parliamentarians. This new Web site is the 

result of a great deal of research, writing, and editing on the part of the Parliamentarian’s Office in conjunction with Office of Web Technology. 
51 

FINANCIAL OPERATIONS 

DISBURSING OFFICE

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 offices, members, and employees of the Senate. The Disbursing Office manages 

the collection of information from distributed accounting locations within the Senate 

to formulate and consolidate the agency level budget, disburse the payroll, pay the 

Senate’s bills, and provide appropriate counseling and advice. The Disbursing Office 

collects information from members and employees that is necessary to maintain and 

administer the retirement, health insurance, life insurance, and other central 

human resource programs, and provides responsive, personal attention to members 

and employees on an unbiased and confidential basis. The Disbursing Office also 

manages the distribution of central financial and human resource information to the 

individual member offices, committees, administrative offices, and leadership offices 

in the Senate while maintaining the confidentiality of information for members and 

Senate employees. 

This past year the Disbursing Office continued to work on several projects that 

required a significant level of staff resources and presented challenges. Among these 

projects were: (1) the testing of system changes to the Senate Payroll System (SPS) 

due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the fixes to the final 

pay period of 2013, and a retroactive COLA payment adjustment, (2) moving the 

printing of the payroll checks in-house and (3) visiting several Federal agencies to 

develop the Senate’s FMIS modernization project. In addition, Disbursing implemented the legislative change of extending health benefits coverage to certain temporary excluded employees and we continue to work with Sergeant at Arms (SAA) 

staff on the implementation of a self-service pilot and the planning of an upgrade. 

In addition, the Disbursing Office is responsible for the compilation of the annual 

operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on 

Appropriations and 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. The 

Report continues to be issued electronically, concurrent with the printed version. 

ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS 

SENATE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR EMPLOYMENT

The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is a non-partisan 

office established at the direction of the Joint Leadership in 1993 after enactment 

of the Government Employee Rights Act, which allowed Senate employees to file 

claims of employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of 

the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), as amended, Senate offices became subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations of 12 employment 

laws. The CAA also established the Office of Compliance (OOC). Among other 

things, the OOC accepts and processes legislative employees’ complaints that their 

employer has violated the CAA. 

The SCCE is charged with the legal defense of Senate offices in all employment 

law cases at both the administrative and court levels. The SCCE attorneys also provide legal advice to Senate offices about their obligations under employment laws. 

Accordingly, each of the clients 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 courts and at administrative hearings); mediations to resolve potential lawsuits; court-ordered alternative dispute resolutions; Occupational Safety and Health Act compliance; union drives, negotiations, 

and unfair labor practice charges; Americans with Disabilities Act compliance; layoffs and office closings in compliance with the law; management training regarding 

legal responsibilities and employee rights; employee and intern training regarding 

prohibited harassment, including sexual harassment; and preventative legal advice. 

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 and other authority. Initiatives include deacidification of paper and prints, phased conservation for books and 

documents, replacement of Congressional Serial Set maps (the Serial Set contains 
52 

all House and Senate documents and reports), collection surveys, exhibits, and matting and framing for Senate leadership. 

The Office of Conservation and Preservation continues to participate in book repair training sessions and has made significant progress in the preservation of the 

Library’s bound book collection. The training program preserves the bound materials in the Library’s collections and reduces the need for the Library to contract 

support for bookbinding and repair. 

CURATOR

The Office of the Senate Curator, on behalf of the Senate Commission on Art, develops and implements the museum and preservation programs for the Senate.The 

Curator collects, preserves, and interprets the Senate’s fine and decorative arts, historic objects, and specific architectural features; and the Curator exercises supervisory responsibility for the historic chambers in the Capitol under the jurisdiction 

of the Commission.Through exhibitions, publications, and other programs, the Curator educates the public about the Senate and its collections. 

In keeping with scheduled procedures, all Senate collection objects were inventoried in 2014, noting any changes in location in the database. As directed by S. 

Res. 178 (108th Congress, 1st session), the Curator submitted a list of the art and 

historic furnishings in the Senate to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The list, known as the Historic Furnishings Inventory, documents the history of acquisition, use, and manufacture for each object. Items on the inventory list 

are prohibited from removal or purchase. The inventory, which is submitted every 

6 months, is compiled by the Curator with assistance from the Senate Sergeant at 

Arms (SAA) and the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) Superintendent of Senate Office Buildings. 

The office continues to advance the preservation and documentation of the historic 

Russell Senate Office Building furnishings by conducting a yearly inspection of the 

use and location of the remaining 63 flat-top partner desks, and through educational 

initiatives aimed at informing Senate staff about the history of the furnishings. 

The Curator continued to maintain and interpret the Old Senate and Old Supreme Court Chambers and coordinated use of both rooms for special occasions.The 

Curator is presently developing a plan for repairs and restoration in the Old Supreme Court Chamber and is conducting extensive primary source research into the 

original construction, configuration, and decoration of the room. 

Sixty objects were accessioned into the Senate Collection this year. A number of 

the items catalogued include objects used by the Senate in the course of conducting 

its legislative business, such as a pen set used by the Presiding Officer in the Senate Chamber. The most significant addition to the collection this year was the gift 

of an oil sketch executed by Constantino Brumidi. The oil sketch was created in ca. 

1872 in preparation for a mural in the Senate Reception Room’s south wall lunette. 

It depicts President George Washington with cabinet members Thomas Jefferson 

and Alexander Hamilton. 

In 2014, the Curator published To Make Beautiful the Capitol: Rediscovering the 

Art of Constantino Brumidi. The publication features scholarship made possible by 

fresh examination of Brumidi’s restored murals and by a closer study of preliminary 

sketches recently added to the Senate collection. 

The Curator installed a new exhibit outside the Dirksen SDG–50 Hearing Room, 

in conjunction with the Senate Library and Senate Historical Office. The exhibit, 

which highlights the Senate’s role in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was installed in 

showcases built into the walls of the room’s vestibule. 

The Curator’s Office reduced costs this year by having staff pack items for shipping, when possible, instead of hiring professional art handlers. This included paintings and small sculptures on loan and retrofitting crates for reuse. The office was 

also able to consolidate several shipments with professional art handlers, for more 

economical shipping/transportation rates and lowered the overall transportation and 

fuel costs billed to the Office of Senate Curator. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Joint Office of Education and Training provides development and training for 

Senate members, committees and staff in Washington, DC, and the State offices via 

video teleconferencing and Webinars. The office provides training in areas such as 

management and leadership development, human resources management, legislative and staff information, new staff and intern orientation, and health promotion. 

The office also provides much of the training for approved software and equipment 

used at the Senate. Technical offerings include System Administration, MS Office 

Suite, Photoshop and digital photography, and Senate specific applications training. 
53 

The office partners with other training providers, both inside and outside of the 

legislative branch, to ensure Senate staff have the skills they need to perform their 

jobs. In 2014, these partnerships included the Library of Congress, Congressional 

Research Service, Senate Library, Government Accountability Office, Capitol.net, 

the Office of Protective Services and Continuity, Senate Historian Office, Office of 

Attending Physician, Employee Assistant Program, Chief Counsel on Employment, 

Office of Congressional Accessibility, SAA Human Resources, Senate Disbursing Office, Senate Ethics Committee, and others. 

The office also coordinates orientation for the Aides to the Senators-elect and new 

office Administrative Directors training after every election. This post-election orientation consists of multiple sessions. After swearing-in, there are additional sessions for the office management. 

In 2014, two State training conferences were held: the Constituent Services Staff 

Conference and the State Directors Forum. 

GIFT SHOP

Since its establishment in 1992 (2 U.S.C. 6576), the Gift Shop serves Senators and 

their spouses, staff, constituents, and the many visitors to the U.S. Capitol complex. 

The products available include a wide range of fine gift items, collectables, and souvenirs, many created exclusively for the Senate. 

In addition to providing products and services from two physical locations, the 

Gift Shop has an online presence on Webster. The Capitol kiosk temporarily closed 

at the end of January 2013 to accommodate continued restoration of the Brumidi 

Corridors. Along with offering over-the-counter and walk-in sales, as well as limited 

intranet services, the Gift Shop administrative office provides mail order service as 

well as special order and catalogue sales. 

Consistent with past practice, a transfer of $40,000 to the Senate Employees 

Child Care Center was made based on the annual sales of the Congressional Holiday Ornament (see 2 U.S.C. 6576(c)(3)). 

A new shared position, Inventory Control/System Specialist, was created to assist 

with IT matters for both the Stationery Room and the Gift Shop. While inventory 

and accounting are maintained separately by the Gift Shop and the Stationery 

Room, the software architecture is the same. This position was instrumental for the 

smooth and successful installation of upgrades to the inventory and accounting software. The inventory software is used to transfer merchandise electronically between 

store locations, receive merchandise from vendors on purchase orders, and ring up 

sales on the cash registers. By minimizing the outside vendor’s involvement in the 

Gift Shop upgrade, there was a savings of $6,000 over the initial estimate to complete the upgrade. Expectations are that this position will continue to benefit the 

Gift Shop, in both technical advice and savings, in the coming year. 

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 historians keep extensive biographical, bibliographical, photographic, and archival information on the nearly 

2,000 former and current senators as well as all vice presidents. The staff edits for 

publication historically significant transcripts and minutes of selected Senate committees and party organizations, and conducts oral history interviews with former 

Senators and staff. The historians offer special talks and tours to inform senators 

and Senate staff about important historical events, the history of the Capitol, and 

the Senate’s institutional development. The photo historian maintains a collection 

of approximately 40,000 still pictures that includes photographs and illustrations of 

Senate committees and nearly all former Senators. The office staff also develops and 

maintains all historical material on the Senate Web site and provides educational 

outreach through email and Twitter. 

In commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, Senate historians developed an extensive multimedia online exhibit for Senate.gov, presented specialized talks and tours, and authored articles describing the 

Senate’s role in the passage of this landmark legislation. 

During 2014, the Senate transferred a multitude of records to the National Archives. The Senate Archivist also met with staff in all of the closing offices, compiled 

a closing Senate offices handbook, and acted as a liaison between members’ offices 

and their designated archived repositories. In addition, the Archivist has evolved to 

meet e-records preservation changes. Principal among them is enhanced collabora-
54 

tion with the Senate IT and systems administrator community, pro-active archiving 

of legislative records and building a solid core of expertise within the Senate. 

The Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress was established in 1990 by 

Public Law 101–509, and meets semiannually to advise the Senate, the House of 

Representatives, and the Archivist of the United States on the management and 

preservation of the records of Congress. By law, the committee is required to report 

to Congress every 6 years on the status of Congress’ and members’ archival records. 

The most recent report was published December 31, 2012. The next report will be 

December 31, 2018. The Secretary of the Senate will chair the committee during the 

114th Congress. 

HUMAN RESOURCES

The Office of Human Resources was established in June 1995 by the Office of the 

Secretary as a result of the CAA. The office focuses on developing and implementing 

human resources policies, procedures, and programs for the Secretary’s employees. 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The Department of Information Systems provides technical hardware and software support for the Office of the Secretary. Emphasis is placed on creating and 

transferring legislative records to outside departments and agencies, fulfilling Disbursing Office financial responsibilities to the member offices, and complying with 

office-mandated and statutory obligations. 

The staff interfaces closely with the application and network development groups 

within the SAA, GPO, and outside vendors on technical issues and joint projects. 

The department provides computer-related support for all local area network servers 

within the Office of the Secretary. Information Systems staff also provides direct application support for all software installed workstations, initiate and guide new 

technologies, and implement next generation hardware and software solutions. 

INTERPARLIAMENTARY SERVICES

The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) is responsible for administrative, 

financial, and protocol functions for special delegations authorized by the Majority 

and/or Minority Leaders, for all interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate 

participates by statute, and for interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate 

participates on an ad hoc basis. The office also provides appropriate assistance as 

requested by other Senate delegations. 

The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group; the Canada-United 

States Interparliamentary Group; the British-American Interparliamentary Group; 

the United States-Russia Interparliamentary Group; the United States-China Interparliamentary Group; and the United States-Japan Interparliamentary Group. 

On behalf of the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, the staff arranges official 

receptions for heads of state, heads of government, heads of parliaments, and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on behalf of foreign dignitaries under authority of Public Law 100–71 are maintained by IPS. 

IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly consolidated financial reports 

for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate. In addition to preparing the 

quarterly reports for the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, IPS staff also 

assists staff members of Senators and committees in filling out the required reports. 

LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM (LIS) PROJECT OFFICE

Update on current status of Legislative Information System (LIS) Project 

The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system (2 U.S.C. 6577) 

that provides desktop access to the content and status of legislative information and 

supporting documents. In addition, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 181, a program was established to provide for 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. 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. 

Extensible Markup Language (XML) has been accepted as the primary data 

standard to be used for the exchange of legislative documents and information. Following the implementation of the LIS, the LIS Project Office shifted its focus to the 

data standards program and established the LIS Augmentation Project (LISAP). 
55 

The overarching goal of the LISAP is to provide a Senate-wide implementation and 

transition to XML for the authoring and exchange of legislative documents. 

The LIS Project Office continued to provide support to the Office of the Senate 

Legislative Counsel (SLC); the Committee on Appropriations; the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and the Senate Enrolling Clerk in their use 

of the XML authoring application, Legislative Editing in XML Application (LEXA) 

for drafting, engrossing, and enrolling. With the addition of the Commerce Committee drafters, all Senate measures in the 113th Congress were produced in XML. 

In addition, the Government Publishing Office (GPO) uses LEXA to complete measures for printing. Several new features and fixes were added in LEXA releases to 

improve the drafting process. 

The LIS Project Office has been working with staff from GPO and the Legislative 

Computer Systems (LCS) in the Office of the House Clerk to create and print committee reports in XML. This office released a LEXA committee report application 

to the Commerce Committee in 2013, and the committee drafters were able to create 

several sections of their committee reports using the LEXA application. In 2014, additional LEXA enhancements allowed the committee drafters to create almost all 

committee report sections in XML by using direct input, copy/paste from Word documents, and copy/paste from Lexis/Nexis. The office will next work with the editorial 

and printing staff of the Committee on Appropriations to begin creating committee 

reports in XML. 

Other enhancements to LEXA in the past year included new features for drafting 

amendments, improvements in drafting and printing for the Appropriations Committee, and new templates for the Enrolling Clerk. 

Two other group projects with GPO and LCS include participants from the Law 

Revision Counsel and the Senate and House Legislative Counsels. The first project 

with the Law Revision Counsel will result in applications to convert and maintain 

the U.S. Code in an XML format. The second project with the Legislative Counsels 

continues work toward the editing and printing of the compilations of existing law 

in their XML format. As of early December 2014, all compilations are now edited 

and maintained in XML. Printing of XML compilations continues to improve. 

The LIS Project Office is also monitoring and participating in GPO’s project to replace Microcomp with a new composition system that can directly ingest XML data 

without having to convert it to another format before printing. 

The LIS Project Office will continue to support all Senate offices using LEXA and 

will continue to work with the House, GPO, and the Library of Congress on projects 

and issues that impact the legislative process and data standards for exchange. The 

office will continue to produce enhancements to LEXA and to seek out new technologies to improve the production of legislative documents. 

LIBRARY

The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and general information 

services to the Senate. The Library’s collection encompasses legislative documents 

that date from the Continental Congress in 1774; current and historic executive and 

judicial branch materials; an extensive book collection on American politics and history, including biographies; a popular collection of audiobooks; and a wide array of 

online resources. The Library also authors content for three Web sites—LIS.gov, 

Senate.gov, and Webster. 

Senate Information Services (SIS) program service contracts for fiscal years 2015 

and 2016 were renegotiated with existing program vendors to continue services for 

the Senate community. SIS staff worked with the vendor to complete a major enhancement of site features. Senate staff may now easily browse and search newspapers. 

The Library continues to meet the Senate’s increasing demand for information 

through the creation of new Web-based content, judicious selection and investment 

in online resources, expanded outreach and training opportunities, and use of technology to support alternative means for information delivery. 

PAGE SCHOOL

The Senate Page School provides students with a sound program, both academically and experientially, during their stay in the Nation’s capital. 

In 2013 the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools awarded accreditation renewal which continues until May 1, 2018. The Page School is among schools 

throughout the world that meet the internationally recognized standards of quality. 

Faculty and staff provided extended educational experiences to pages, including 

field trips, guest speakers, opportunities to play musical instruments and vocalize, 

and world languages study. The community service project embraced by pages and 
56 

staff continues. Pages collected, assembled, and shipped items for gift packages to 

military personnel serving in various locations and included letters of support to the 

troops. 

PRINTING AND DOCUMENT SERVICES

The Office of Printing and Document Services (OPDS) serves as liaison to the 

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 additional 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. 

During fiscal year 2014, the OPDS prepared 2,471 requisitions authorizing GPO 

to print and bind the Senate’s work, exclusive of legislation and the Congressional 

Record. 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 additional printed products, as well as monitoring blank paper and stationery quotas for each Senate office and committee. Examples of major printing projects are: the Report of the Secretary of the Senate; the 

113th Congress Congressional Directory; the Authority and Rules of Senate Committees; and the Journal of Senate Proceedings, 113th Congress 1st Session. 

During 2014 over 10,000 requests for legislative material were received at the 

walk-in counter, through the mail, by fax, and electronically. Online ordering of legislative documents and the Legislative Hot List Link, where members and staff can 

confirm arrival of printed copies of the most sought after legislative documents, continued to be popular. The site is updated several times daily as 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. 

PUBLIC RECORDS

The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains records, reports, 

and other documents filed with the Secretary of the Senate that involve the Federal 

Election Campaign Act, as amended; the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995, as 

amended; 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 works closely with 

the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, 

and the Clerk of the House concerning the filing requirements of the aforementioned 

acts and Senate rules. 

From October 2013 through September 2014, Public Records staff assisted over 

10,000 individuals seeking information from or about reports filed with the office, 

responding to walk-in inquiries and inquiries by telephone or e-mail. Further, the 

office provides assistance to individuals attempting to comply with the provisions of 

the LDA. 

Implementation of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK 

Act) continued into fiscal year 2014. The STOCK Act, as amended, required the Secretary to collaborate on the development of an electronic filing system for member 

and employee financial disclosure reports. Working in coordination with the SAA 

and the Ethics Committee, the Public Records office participated in the planning 

and development of the electronic filing system which was successfully launched on 

January 1, 2014. 

The LDA requires semiannual contribution reports, and quarterly financial and 

lobbying activity reports. To continue implementation of the LDA, the Public 

Records Office conducted two LDA Guidance reviews in coordination with the Clerk 

of the House. As of September 30, 2014, there were 4,443 registrants representing 

16,163 clients. The total number of individual lobbyists disclosed on fiscal year 2014 

registrations and reports was 11,950. The total number of lobbying registrations and 

reports processed was 108,414. The office referred 949 cases of potential noncompliance to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. 

The Federal Election Campaign Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly 

and pre- and post-election reports with the Secretary of the Senate. Filings for the 
57 

fiscal year totaled 4,722 documents containing 439,745 pages, which were scanned, 

processed, and transmitted to the FEC, as required by law. During the calendar 

year 2014, an election year, the office processed 5,921 reports containing 718,827 

pages, an all-time record for total number of pages processed. 

The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May 15, 2014. The reports were made available to the public and press as soon as they were filed and 

processed, and in most cases, the same day. Public Records staff provided copies to 

the Ethics Committee and the appropriate State officials. 

Senators are required to file mass mailing reports on a quarterly basis. The number of pages submitted during fiscal year 2014 was 582. In addition, the Public 

Records Office received 454 Gift Rule/Travel reports during fiscal year 2014. 

STATIONERY ROOM

Since it was formally established in 1854, the Senate Stationery Room has 

evolved into a diversified retail outlet serving the needs of the Senate community 

by providing a wide range of office and administrative supplies, communication and 

computer accessories, and special order items for official Government business. Additionally, the Stationery Room provides U.S. flags flown over the Capitol for constituent requests. 

The Stationery Room fulfills its mission by: utilizing open market, competitive 

bid, or General Services Administration schedules for supply procurement; maintaining sufficient in-stock quantities of select merchandise to best meet the immediate needs of the Senate community; developing and maintaining productive business relationships with a wide variety of vendors to ensure sufficient breadth and 

availability of merchandise; maintaining expense accounts for all authorized customers and preparing monthly activity statements; and managing all accounts receivable and accounts payable reimbursement. 

The Stationery Room, with the assistance of the Office of Web Technology, maintained an online Web ordering portal through Webster. The Web site offers an upto-date Stationery Room catalog with product description, price, and pictures. Customers can place a stock order online and request direct delivery to a location of 

their choice. During fiscal year 2014, the Stationery Room received and processed 

more orders than fiscal year 2013. Use of the Web site helps reduce order time, increases customer convenience and order accuracy, and reduces the use of paper 

through reduced reliance on hard copy orders. Moving forward, the Stationery Room 

anticipates increased use of this Web site as customers discover the benefits of its 

use. 

Utilizing the Pay.gov service offered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the 

Stationery Room has been accepting online flag requests and payments from constituents through member Web sites. At the end of fiscal year 2014, 43 member offices were offering this payment option and most of the new member offices are in 

the beginning stages of the program. The benefits include a reduced wait time for 

constituents, elimination of payment inaccuracies, and greatly reduced workload for 

office representatives. The Stationery Room will continue to expand the service. 

The Stationery Room prepares activity statements for approximately 300 customer accounts on the last business day of each month. One upgrade most requested 

by our customers is for the Stationery Room to post the account statements directly 

to TranSAAct, the online business services portal for Senate offices. The inclusion 

of Stationery in the latest TranSAAct release occurred in early fiscal year 2014, enabling customers to print statements, current and historical, and research transaction details directly from their desktop. The Stationery Room expects to save over 

$500 a year in paper costs and, most importantly, reduce paper use by 45,000 individual sheets. 

The Stationery Room will be replacing older, outdated handheld scanners with 

new tablets and scanners to interact more efficiently with the SAA upgraded wireless infrastructure. The Stationery will save over $5,250 annually by eliminating all 

paper receipts using the signature capture feature on the tablets. The Stationery 

Room will save over $5,250 annually by eliminating all paper receipts using the signature capture feature on tablets. When an office inquires about the status of their 

order, the Stationery Room will be able to respond immediately by accessing the information from the tablet. 

WEB TECHNOLOGY

The Office of Web Technology is responsible for: Senate.gov; the Secretary’s Page 

on Webster; and other portions of Webster—available to Senate staff, along with the 

Web-based systems, servers, and technologies supporting these Web sites that fall 

under the purview of the Secretary of the Senate. 
58 

Senate.gov content is maintained by over 30 contributors from seven departments 

of the Secretary’s Office and three departments of SAA. All content is controlled 

through the Secretary’s Web content management system, managed by the Office 

of Web Technology. 

Five oral histories, 30 Senate Stories, and five featured biographies authored by 

the Senate Historical Office were added to Senate.gov this year. In addition, a new 

style for displaying roll call votes was deployed on Senate.gov. The new modern display makes scanning and in depth reading of votes easier and utilizes Library of 

Congress Handles for linking to legislation. 

In preparation for the start of the 114th Congress, the office built individual member pages for the 13 newly sworn Senators. Web Technology coordinated with the 

individual designees to attain necessary materials, answer questions, and acquire 

approval so all members had a presence online when sworn in for the 114th Congress. Much education was provided to designees for options to replace the temporary Web page with more permanent solutions, along with facilitating domain redirects to ensure constituents are always able to easily find their members’ Web 

sites. 

The eDear Colleague site was launched and built to automatically update daily. 

In conjunction with the Senate Library the newly developed system allows for fulltext searches of letters and attachments that were distributed via email starting in 

2012 and some legacy documents provided by the Senate Rules Committee starting 

in 2011. The site allows for sorting by title, data, Congress, bill number, and person 

through leveraging advanced coding techniques and a customizable enterprise 

search engine. The automated system makes previously difficult to find information 

easily available. The site was built using existing resources. 

In 2014 an average of 28,370 visits occurred per day to the central site of Senate.gov. The Office responded to approximately 423 emails from the general public 

regarding Senate.gov sites. This is a 66 percent decrease from the previous year 

which is due to advances in information architecture, search results, and custom 

error pages to help users resolve issue on their own. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND CONTINUITY PLANNING 

Throughout 2014, the Office of the Secretary continued to build upon a comprehensive emergency preparedness and continuity program initiated in 1997. The 

program extends from continuity of operations (COOP) planning within every department of the Office of the Secretary; to coordination with Leadership and the 

Sergeant at Arms on Senate-wide continuity plans; joint planning with the House 

of Representatives on bicameral programs; and inter-branch coordination with the 

executive and judicial branches. The objective of these programs is to provide Leadership the tools needed to ensure that the Senate can meet its constitutional obligations under any circumstances. 

Within the Office of the Secretary, the primary objective is the continuity of the 

legislative process. The Legislative Staff and supporting offices maintain and regularly exercise plans to ensure that the Senate can convene and conduct legislative 

business under any conditions in various locations. Departments responsible for the 

execution of statutory obligations, such as the Disbursing Office and the Office of 

Public Records, maintain plans to carry out those functions, either locally or elsewhere, depending upon conditions. All Departments within the Office of the Secretary maintain individual plans to ensure that each Department can carry out its 

minimum essential functions during an emergency, until full operations can be restored. All Departmental plans are supported by emergency supply kits stored in 

multiple locations within and outside the District of Columbia. Across the Office of 

the Secretary, monthly drills, annual exercises, and flyaway kit updates are conducted in order to ensure that plans and supply kits are current, and that staff understand their continuity responsibilities. A cross-training program in the Legislative Departments ensures that staff with the skills required to support Floor operations will be available during an emergency. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Larkin, Sergeant at Arms. 
(59) 

U.S. SENATE 

SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK J. LARKIN, SERGEANT AT ARMS 

ACCOMPANIED BY JIM MORHARD, DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS 

Mr. LARKIN. Chairman Capito and Ranking Member Schatz, 

thank you for the honor of testifying before you today in this subcommittee. 

I have a formal record that I ask be submitted for your further 

review. 

Senator CAPITO. Without objection, it is submitted. Thank you. 

Mr. LARKIN. Thank you. 

As the new 40th Sergeant at Arms, 10 weeks on the job, this has 

been an active time since we have come into office. We have hosted 

the State of the Union, a number of congressional off-sites, joint 

sessions of Congress, dealt with challenges from mother nature and 

other issues that related to security and some of the dynamic 

threats that challenge this Nation today. 

The transition into the office has been made with very little distraction, and I thank my predecessor, Drew Willison, and the prior 

Sergeants at Arms, Terry Gainer, and Bill Pickle for a lot of that 

assistance, along with my Sergeant at Arms senior staff seated behind me today. And I particularly point out my deputy, Jim 

Morhard, who is a longtime Hill associate, and very much thankful 

for his presence on the team and the knowledge that he brings to 

the staff, along with the other exceptional professionals who are 

truly dedicated to supporting the Senate and the success of what 

we do in this legislative branch. 

Additionally, I would like to thank your professional staff. They 

have also been of great assistance in this transition. 

In order to maximize time for your questions, I would just like 

to cover five main points that I have been focusing on as the Sergeant at Arms since coming into office. 

The first is the safety and security of this institution. And certainly the attention has been to place the appropriate security 

measures in place to be effective against the dynamic threats, as 

I alluded to earlier, that challenge this Nation, and we can talk 

about that a little bit more in detail as we go on. This Senate needs 

to be able to legislate free of distraction, and again, that is the 

charge of the Sergeant at Arms Office, along with my partnership 

with the U.S. Capitol Police and the Secretary of the Senate. And 

again, we will stay very much focused on that task. 

The second point I would like to make is regarding our cyber 

health and network defense, again another major effort underway 

within my department to validate that our information systems are 

as strong as they can be, that in fact we are on top of our equip-
60 

ment refresh efforts to minimize any failures within the system 

from what we have experienced in the past from our operations forward and also to be able to evaluate ourselves using both internal 

resources and external resources to evaluate network defense, to 

truly grade ourselves on our ability to protect our information systems. 

The third point of focus is truly customer relations, our ability 

to support the Senate and all the member offices effectively with 

the wide spectrum of components that make up the Sergeant at 

Arms. As you know, the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for printing services, mail screening, mail delivery, some maintenance aspects for the U.S. Capitol. We also handle the support services associated with parking, transportation, et cetera. So it is not just the 

safety and security that very much draws the attention of the Sergeant at Arms but is a lot of the other working parts, components 

that keep the trains running, so to speak, for the Senate. 

The fourth area is the continuity preparedness. As the Secretary 

of the Senate alluded to, again, a very serious responsibility that 

involves significant planning and effort, that in fact if we have to 

consider relocation and standing up the Senate in alternate type 

scenarios, that we can do that seamlessly and effectively, minimizing any time shortage. 

And the final area that, again, is of particular focus is in the 

partnerships and relationships. As we have talked, it is critical 

that within the Senate here that not only the Secretary of the Senate and U.S. Capitol—that we have a seamless and truly transparent relationship with each other just because of the way the different issues crosswalk into our areas of responsibility, but also 

that effort needs to transcend over to the House Sergeant at Arms, 

the Administrative Officer in the House and the Clerk—especially 

for the joint programs where we are looking to gain efficiencies and 

increase the level of communications with the other side. It is very 

important that we have those relationships and that they are as 

tight as possible. 

Externally it is the relationships with our law enforcement partners, the intelligence community, our defense assets and other 

agencies that come into play especially as we talk about continuity 

operations. 

As the Sergeant at Arms, I very much pay attention to how my 

various components can increase our efficiency and effectiveness 

with the appropriate funding and that I provide a level of accountability to you that, again, reaches your expectations and, finally, to 

be able to justify that with measurable results, again, that demonstrate that the appropriations that you have afforded us in fact 

are being applied properly and are having the effect that successfully supports the Senate. 

And with that, Madam Chairman, I yield my time. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK J. LARKIN

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I am pleased to report on 
61 

the progress the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms (SAA) and our plans to enhance our service to the Senate. 

For fiscal year 2016, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a total budget 

of $205,974,000. This request represents a 4.4 percent increase from the current enacted budget, but is nearly identical to our budget level from fiscal year 2008. 

Today, our organization has approximately 70 fewer employees than we did in 2010. 

As someone new to the Sergeant at Arms organization, I am both fortunate and 

grateful to have the support of an outstanding senior management team. It includes 

my Deputy, Jim Morhard; Chief of Staff, Mike Stenger; Assistant Sergeants at Arms 

Dick Attridge (Intelligence and Protective Services), Vicki Sinnett (Chief Information Officer), Bret Swanson (Operations), and Kevin Morison (Capitol Operations); 

General Counsel Terence Liley; Legislative Liaison Mason Wiggins; Democratic Liaison Scott Rodman; and Chief Financial Officer Chris Dey. The many goals and accomplishments set forth in this testimony would not have been possible without this 

team’s leadership and commitment, as well as the dedication of the women and men 

who work for the Senate Sergeant at Arms office. 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND CONTINUITY

Emergency Preparedness 

Our emergency plans and procedures are designed to ensure the life safety of Senators, staff, and visitors within our facilities by equipping them with the necessary 

tools to respond to emergency situations. Our plans are also designed to ensure the 

Senate can continue its essential functions following an emergency event. 

Over the past year, our office worked with Senate offices to update 188 Emergency Action Plans using guidelines set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration as part of the Congressional Accountability Act. As part of this process, we look at the lessons learned from exercises and real world events to improve 

life-safety procedures for the Senate community. 

We conduct a robust training program to ensure the Senate community is prepared to respond to a variety of emergency events both at work and at home. Over 

4,000 staff members were trained during 180 classes covering a variety of emergency preparedness topics. The ‘‘Responding to an Active Shooter’’ class continues 

to be one of our most popular. The course is taught in conjunction with the United 

States Capitol Police (USCP) and is invaluable for educating staff on what to expect 

from law enforcement throughout an active shooter event. 

We also work with USCP to execute annual evacuation, shelter in place, and internal relocation drills to ensure staff understand the correct life-safety responses 

to emergency events that may occur on Capitol Hill. We supported 26 evacuation 

drills that included Senate office buildings, the Postal Square building, Senate Page 

School, and Employee Child Care Center. We upgraded our accountability tools this 

year and provided assistance in gathering accountability information from offices, 

which is ultimately shared with USCP to track potentially missing staff. 

To ensure staff have the necessary equipment to respond to emergency situations, 

we supply offices with victim rescue units, supply kits, and annunciators. We have 

inventoried over 270 offices and 27,000 pieces of emergency equipment to ensure 

operability and expired items are replaced. 

To improve our alert messaging capability, we initiated a project with USCP, the 

House of Representatives, Architect of the Capitol (AOC), and Library of Congress 

to acquire a joint emergency mass notification system. This project aims to reduce 

the number of alert notification systems needed to transmit critical life-safety messages to the Senate and Capitol complex, and eliminate outdated systems that are 

difficult to use. The goal is to reduce the time it takes to broadcast messages over 

numerous platforms, providing Senators, staff, and visitors with additional time to 

respond to emergency situations. 

We assist member offices and committees in writing their Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans, which are critical to the Senate’s ability to perform its essential functions. The SAA office continues to ensure existing continuity plans and capabilities are regularly maintained, updated, and exercised. In 2014, a contingency 

facilities multi-day exercise was conducted involving four separate facilities and over 

300 participants. This was the largest exercise to date and validated plans that call 

for the capability to quickly set up and operate contingency facilities in support of 

the Senate’s constitutional obligations. 

Communication among Senate staff responsible for executing plans during and 

following emergencies is critical to ensuring a successful outcome. Staff who have 

responsibilities during special events and emergencies were issued USCP digital radios with dedicated talk groups allowing for rapid communications independent of 
62 

the cellular network. The radios were successfully utilized during numerous exercises, providing a valuable command and control tool. 

Contingency Programs 

Sergeant at Arms staff collaborated with the Joint Continuity Office to further develop and refine contingency transportation and relocation site plans in 2014. Staff 

detailed to the Joint Continuity Office supported the planning process from developing policy guidance to coordinating directives from Senate leadership and finalizing Joint Congressional Continuity Plans. We are continually refining leadership 

evacuation sites, transportation operations, and embarkation point plans. These 

Continuity of Government (COG) plans are then coordinated with our congressional 

planning partners and supporting agencies, and all are continuously validated and 

exercised. A major accomplishment in 2014 was the development and finalization 

of joint House and Senate space allocation breakdowns. 

To support our COG mission, we continued to refine the Senate Emergency Relocation Group (ERG), addressing the Senate’s unique staffing requirements during 

contingency operations. Skilled SAA staff have been identified and trained to support Senate continuity operations during an emergency event requiring relocation. 

This program provides information, training, supplies, and support to 70 SAA staff 

members who will deploy during a contingency event. A functional exercise utilizing 

ERG support was conducted in 2014 and will be repeated this year. 

During 2014, we conducted several joint exercises with the Secretary of the Senate, USCP, Architect of the Capitol, Office of Attending Physician, party secretaries, 

and other congressional stakeholders. We completed over 20 exercises, tabletops, 

tests, and guided discussions in 2014 covering all aspects of emergency response including emergency operations centers, transportation, contingency staffing, evacuation, shelter in place, and Chamber media operations. This past year, we conducted 

the first ever functional exercise of our leadership evacuation plan and validated our 

ability to notify, transport, and safely relocate leadership should the need arise. 

Security Planning and Police Operations 

The Security Planning and Police Operations (SPPO) program coordinates security and law enforcement support for the Senate community. The Senate community 

includes Senate committees, offices (including Senate State offices), and support offices on Capitol Hill. Provided support includes coordinating Senate campus access, 

working with the Committee on Rules and Administration to identify and publish 

Senate office building door and barricade openings, conducting office security 

sweeps, and installing proximity card readers and duress buttons. In 2014, SPPO 

received and processed 214 committee security assistance requests. They also processed 982 special requests for vehicle clearances, deliveries, and bus access to Capitol Hill. 

The SPPO program provides staffing for the USCP Command Center support program, which ensures SAA representation during all hours the Senate is in session, 

and during normal business hours during recesses. This ensures immediate communication among the USCP, SAA, and Senate community during special events, emergency incidents, and routine operations. 

The SPPO staff collaborated and provided support to the USCP and external law 

enforcement agencies during several special events in 2014, including the State of 

the Union address, multiple Joint Sessions of Congress, and the U.S. Capitol summer concert series. 

The SPPO also includes the SAA’s State Office Readiness program, which provides security and preparedness resources to State offices mirroring programs currently available to Capitol Hill Senate offices. Participating offices receive a variety 

of security enhancements at no cost to the Senate office. The program also assists 

State offices with completing an Emergency Action Plan to identify unique security 

and emergency preparedness procedures and provides emergency life safety equipment to State offices. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Senate IT Network Security and Response 

The Senate is considered a prime target for cyber security breaches. Operational 

IT security activities appear to support this assertion. In the first few weeks of 

2015, the Senate has received an average of 173,000 e-mail messages per day. Of 

these daily totals, an average of 24,000 messages, or 14 percent, are being immediately flagged as spam or malicious. 

Many of our efforts to secure the Senate IT infrastructure are proactive. The Senate Secure Web Gateway prevents an average of 72,000 connections to 1,200 different potentially malicious Web sites each week. The vast majority of the Secure 
63 

Web Gateway prevention activity occurs in the background, transparent to Senate 

staff, so that their computers are automatically protected from common attacks 

without requiring them to take any direct action. 

IT Security staff continually evaluate our stewardship of Senate network protection responsibility based on the three-legged table of security, functionality, and taxpayer value. Near-term initiatives will allow the SAA to apply even more advanced 

technologies to mitigate cyber threats, which will reduce the Senate’s overall IT cost 

of operation. Investment in new IT security technologies will further strengthen our 

malware intrusion prevention capabilities. This will leverage commercially available 

systems that have proven effective in many other organizations at reducing systemic 

IT operational risk. We have also begun developing the Senate’s first comprehensive 

cybersecurity strategy. This 5-year strategy will cover key strategic focus areas and 

include identified critical elements of each area. This strategy will drive our tactical 

and operational IT security planning. 

In 2014, we proved the Senate mobile communication vehicles (ATLAS) were able 

to successfully support an Alternate Chamber at an offsite location. This allows the 

Senate to continue operations at a location where a connection to the Senate network is nonexistent. 

Network Operations 

In 2014, the Network Operations Center received and serviced 2,278 Service Center ‘‘incident’’ tickets, and processed almost 1,200 change requests and more than 

900 LAN drop requests. From a security perspective, as part of the authentication 

process, wireless clients will undergo an assessment of their laptops that will verify 

their devices are compliant with up-to-date virus software and definitions, and operating system updates. Laptops will not be allowed onto the wireless LAN until they 

have met these criteria, further enhancing the overall security of the Senate network. Full implementation of Discovery will be complete in the next few months. 

A multi-year project that has progressed in 2014 is the use of broadband Internet 

service to support Senate State office locations. Using broadband Internet service 

significantly increases the amount of bandwidth at each of the 460-plus locations, 

increasing the performance at each site for both intranet and Internet services. The 

increased bandwidth also affords the ability to support emerging technologies such 

as increased video conferencing capabilities between DC and a State office. 

Replacing Switches 

In January 2015, the Senate experienced a significant network outage that impacted e-mail, mobility services, the virtual infrastructure, senate.gov Web sites, 

and most Enterprise applications. This was the result of a hardware failure on a 

major distribution switch at the Primary Computing Facility (PCF). The hardware 

module was replaced and the switch was stabilized. A replacement switch and its 

partner at the Alternate Computing Facility (ACF) are now installed at both locations, and the network is scheduled to be cutover to the new hardware as soon as 

a remaining implementation issue is resolved. The new equipment allows us to improve on the original design, providing additional redundancy and eliminating the 

single point of failure. 

Senate Payroll System (SPS) 

We are working in collaboration with the Secretary of the Senate to support and 

enhance the new PeopleSoft Senate Payroll System. This new system replaced a 20- 

year-old mainframe system and provides a state-of-the-art technological platform 

that should serve the Senate well over the coming years. During the next quarter, 

we plan to begin a self-service pilot that will allow individuals online access to view 

their pay advances, W–2s, benefits summaries, and other personal information. 

Data Center Management 

We are currently modernizing the management of our two data centers with the 

addition of a centralized software system, new server rack smart Power Distribution 

Units (PDUs), and new environmental sensor systems. The software will allow for 

the bridging of information across organizational domains in order to provide a single holistic view of a data center’s performance so that energy, equipment, and floor 

space are used as efficiently as possible. It will include collecting and monitoring 

of detailed power usage and environmental statistics from the new hardware equipment, inventory, capacity planning, workflow, as well as dashboards, allowing us to 

improve efficiency and reduce the risk of failures and outages. 

Evaluating New Technologies 

One of our core missions is to evaluate new technologies and tools based on customer needs and their fit in the Senate environment. This includes numerous 
64 

laptops, desktops, printers, mobile devices, software (including security patches and 

updates), and services. 

Office Application Manager 

A new version of the Office Application Manager was released in November 2014. 

The new application has a significantly improved user interface and functionality, 

including direct upload of constituent checklist items (eliminating the e-mail intermediary step), ability to have an outside individual submit a recommendation on behalf of an applicant, and Active Directory authentication. The new functionality incorporated in this version of the application makes it the most fully featured and 

secure release to date. Currently, there have been over 14,000 individual submissions and over 16,000 constituent accounts created. 

Systems Management Service (SMS) 

Our Systems Management Service remains state-of-the-art by completing upgrades to the backend systems that provide for distribution of software and security 

patches to Senate Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac computers. 

We are researching the use of a new capability in the main application that provides the Systems Management Service software patching solution to Senate offices, 

which can provide automated security patches to Apple Macintosh computers as 

well as Windows-based computers. Providing Macintosh patches from this one application will potentially allow us to decommission the second separate system for Macintosh patching, producing a cost savings. 

Microsoft Lync 2013 

Our unified communication capability has been enhanced by completing the platform upgrade to Microsoft Lync 2013. Efforts are underway to integrate with other 

legislative branch agencies. More than 6,000 Senate accounts are enabled for Lync, 

with over 2,000 users logged in on a daily basis for instant messaging and presence. 

This year, we will further extend communication and collaboration capabilities of 

the unified client by integrating with our videoconferencing infrastructure and by 

making a new shared chat feature available. 

Active Directory—ID System Integration and Photo Display 

A process has been developed to synchronize Active Directory accounts with ID 

System records. This process positions the Active Directory to be leveraged for unified identity management and authentication services. This means that Senate 

users are now able to manage a single set of credentials for access to a rapidly increasing number of resources. With a single password to manage, users are more 

likely to frequently change their password and are less likely to write it down or 

otherwise store credentials insecurely. This also better facilitates removal of access 

to systems as users depart from the Senate. By disabling departing users’ Active 

Directory accounts, we automatically disable access to all other systems to which 

the users had access. We also used the process to deliver a new optional photo display service to publish ID photos in e-mail and IM. 

Senate Messaging and Authentication Services (SMAS) 

We commenced activities to complete major upgrades to the Senate Messaging 

and Authentication Services environment. The upgrades to Microsoft Active Directory and Exchange will assure the system remains secure, stable, and capable of 

supporting current operating systems and applications. Deployment of Exchange 

Server 2013 will further improve the reliability of the e-mail messaging environment, reduce overall costs, and increase mailbox capacity. 

TranSAAct—Our Platform for Doing Business Online 

Functionality continues to be added to TranSAAct, our platform for doing business 

online, eliminating paper-based manual processes and addressing the requirements 

of offices and the Committee on Rules and Administration. Built on an extensible 

modern database framework, TranSAAct allows indefinite expansion as new requirements are identified. 

In addition, we worked with the Rules Committee and the SAA parking office to 

simplify the parking request forms, improve features based on customer feedback, 

update business rules, modernize the technology, and improve the integration with 

the parking systems. 

We are currently planning a technology refresh, upgrading infrastructure components, migrating the platform to virtual servers, simplifying the architecture by 

eliminating a third party product, and migrating user and group management into 

TranSAAct. That effort will lay the groundwork for providing users the ability to 

create profiles to reduce some data entry on request forms and customize commu-
65 

nication preferences. We also have plans to make the home page more useful by presenting consolidated information on open service requests. 

Telecommunications 

Our voicemail system has been upgraded to the new software level 10.1 and we 

now have 16 redundant servers. This helps support our continuity of operations, and 

we continue to look at making this platform more mobile and redundant. With this 

upgrade, we will be offering more voicemail features and better integration with 

Microsoft software, and we now have an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system 

that we are preparing to assist the Capitol Operators during heavy call periods. We 

will be offering these new features in fiscal year 2016. 

In 2014, we started a multiyear process to upgrade the telephone system (CS2100) 

in Washington, DC. Once this project is completed, we will support session initiated 

protocol (SIP), which is a standard unified communication platform allowing us to 

integrate easily with multiple vendors including Cisco, Microsoft, and Polycom. This 

will provide the backbone to voice, video, chat, and conferencing services. The upgrade provides more phone features, a higher level of security, reduction of costs, 

and reduction of equipment. It also provides us the capability to use SIP for our 

phones and trunk lines to Verizon. Currently, our old trunks to Verizon are costly 

and we need more of them compared to the technology of SIP. In addition, we will 

be able to offer SIP phones to our customers, which allows for more mobility and 

more choices of phone types. We will have this project completed and begin offering 

these new features in fiscal year 2016. 

We have also started our State office upgrade project for 460-plus offices, a 

multiyear project that will modernize the State office communications systems and 

bring more features and security to our State offices at a lower cost. These systems 

are old and costly, and maintenance is becoming more difficult. Most offices will be 

seeing some of these benefits in fiscal year 2016. 

We are currently modernizing both of our telecom switch rooms and providing 

more power backup and physical security to both rooms. This includes relocation of 

some equipment to a more secured area; more secured access into these areas; cameras, temperature, and water monitors; power monitors for safety purposes; and 

computer monitoring of activity in these rooms. This project will be completed in 

fiscal year 2016. 

Constituent Correspondence Services 

Over the past decade, Constituent Correspondence Services funding remained at 

the same level up until the last 2 years, when funding was reduced. The fund appropriation is no longer keeping up with the allotments to member offices and has required a requested increase to ensure that the fund has appropriations equal to the 

prescribed allotments. Because of cost savings throughout the CIO organization, this 

increase is achievable while having no impact to the overall SAA budget request. 

OPERATIONS

Central Operations 

The Senate ID Office issues Smart Cards and standard IDs using two different 

Card Management Systems (CMS). The ID Office is in the planning phase of simplifying this process by using one CMS, which can issue both types of IDs. In addition, 

the ID Office is planning to implement an Identity Management System (IDMS) in 

order to better manage Senate staff credentials across all systems supported by the 

Sergeant at Arms. A consolidated IDMS will help streamline the creation of user 

accounts and facilitate access throughout the Senate Enterprise. During each Congress, the Senate ID Office issues over 35,000 IDs to Senators, staff, liaison personnel, and designated members of the media. 

Parking Operations 

Parking Operations is adopting social media as an additional method of communication to the Senate community. Disseminating information about area and street 

closures, especially those due to special events or emergency situations, continues 

to be a focus of improvement. 

Monitoring renovations of underground garages scheduled for fiscal year 2016 and 

the projects’ impact to Senate parking areas will be a primary focus of Parking Operations. The Architect of the Capitol is planning renovations of the Russell Legislative Garage and the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Office Building Garage. The Russell Legislative Garage renovation will displace our parking permit issuance booth 

and over one hundred spaces under the control of the Committee on Rules and Administration. Parking Operations will work closely with the Committee’s staff and 

AOC personnel to ensure customer service can be maintained and displaced garage 
66 

permit holders are accommodated in other Senate areas. The renovation of the Judiciary Office Building Garage will present another set of challenges. Although we will 

not lose any spaces due to the renovation, we will be relocating our permit holders 

to different and unfamiliar spaces throughout the renovation. 

Transportation and Fleet Operations 

Transportation and Fleet Operations procures and maintains Senate vehicles, provides transportation information to offices, and maintains and operates the Senate 

Daily Shuttle and Parking Shuttle services. The SAA fleet includes trucks, vans, 

buses, SUVs, electric vehicles, handicapped-accessible vehicles, and Segways. 

Photography Studio 

The Photography Studio provides photography and photo imaging services for 

Senate offices and committees. The studio manages and maintains the Photo Browser Application, which provides Senate offices a secure location to upload, organize, 

download, and place orders for their photos through a Web interface. All photos in 

a Senator’s collection are archived in the Photo Browser system and are accessible 

during their time in office. 

Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail 

The Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail (PGDM) department provides support to 

the Senate community through graphic design, printing, mailing, document preservation, photocopying, logistics and security—producing over 59 million items during 

fiscal year 2014. We continue to modernize processes and applications to expand our 

product offerings and enhance efficiency to meet the evolving demands of Senate offices. 

As a good steward of fiscal resources, PGDM garnered notable savings for the 

Senate. More than $1.1 million was saved in postage costs by pre-sorting and discounting 5.4 million pieces of outgoing Senate franked mail. Another $34,000 in 

postage was saved by using software to identify over 69,000 undeliverable addresses 

before they were introduced into the United States Postal Service mail stream. 

Since fiscal year 2000, the Postal Service increased the cost of a First Class mail 

piece from $.33 to $.49, which makes PGDM’s mission to maximize discounts increasingly important. With the recent acquisition of state-of-the-art sorting equipment, PGDM has trained employees to perform routine maintenance, which generates an annual savings of $43,000 and ensures our equipment continues to run 

at an optimal level of performance. 

For more than a decade, PGDM has been digitizing daily letter mail for member 

offices, making it easier to provide a quicker reply to constituents through traditional letters, social media sites, and digital e-mail systems. PGDM has kept pace 

with the latest technology by implementing high-speed digital scanners, document 

file management systems, and devices that convert obsolete media to useable files. 

The implementation of PGDM’s document management system, OnBase, has contributed to member offices gaining efficiency by going paperless and providing them 

the ability to perform searches for specific dates, legislative issues, or individual 

constituent correspondents throughout their entire document collection. 

Since the acquisition of our wide-format digital printing systems in fiscal year 

2009, PGDM has printed 42,000 charts and generated a cost savings of approximately $3.8 million compared to having these charts done by an outside entity. 

PGDM maintains several high-volume production printers that have a combined 

copy count of more than 7.5 million impressions. Soon, PGDM will be acquiring a 

new high-volume digital press to replace two outdated printers. This action will save 

PGDM $40,000 in annual maintenance costs, and will also generate cost saving in 

consumable supplies. 

Senate Post Office 

The Senate Post Office’s dedicated workforce tests and delivers mail and packages 

to over 180 mail stops within the Capitol complex, while providing a messenger 

service to multiple locations within the Washington metropolitan area. 

We recently procured a new mail sorter that was engineered to meet our mail 

screening specifications and replaced an outdated, less efficient machine. This sorter 

has duplex imaging technology to facilitate easy lookup of captured images in the 

event of a mail incident or database queries on specific addressees. This will enhance the Senate’s security by augmenting the investigative capabilities of the 

USCP in response to a threatening mail event. The maintenance contract for the 

new sorter will net a 50 percent reduction compared to our current costs. 
67 

Capitol Facilities 

Capitol Facilities supports the Senate community by providing a clean and professional work environment in the Capitol. Our Environmental Services division cleans 

Capitol spaces, moves Capitol furniture, and provides special event setups in the 

Capitol—including 10 event spaces in the Capitol Visitor Center. The Capitol Facilities Furnishings division provides furniture, carpeting, and window treatments to 

Capitol offices, and framing services for offices and committees throughout the Senate. 

Focus continues to be on realizing cost savings while not sacrificing service. Salary costs in the department were reduced by nearly 12 percent in fiscal year 2014, 

resulting in savings of $443,000. To efficiently meet cyclical customer demands during peak event setups and furniture moves, Capitol Facilities supplements the fulltime workforce with contracted labor. Using the contract workforce for addressing 

‘‘surge related’’ events has allowed us to reduce those costs by 45 percent. With a 

reduced workforce, Capitol Facilities has combined job specialties and engaged in 

cross-training employees to ensure that services are maintained at the high level 

expected. In addition, we are planning an upgrade to the Capitol Facilities Online 

Request System (CapFOR) to give more information online to offices so that they 

can identify furniture that more readily meets their needs. 

Office Support Services 

The State Office Liaison staff serve as the conduit between Senate offices and 

commercial or Federal landlords, overseeing approximately 450 State offices. Funding for commercial, Federal, and mobile State office rents are primarily driven by 

the members’ desire for suitable office space which best meets the growing needs 

of their local constituencies. The State Office Liaison staff negotiated 22 new commercial leases, 20 commercial amendments, 3 commercial renewals, and 4 new Federal office leases last year. Establishing a State office includes many activities: coordinating furniture and furnishings, negotiating the rate per square footage, and 

coordinating parking and office alterations. We continue to work closely with members’ staff to ensure they understand the cost implications in relocating an office. 

We are committed to assisting members in negotiating the most comprehensive 

lease agreements that are both cost effective and competitive to the commercial 

market rates. 

CAPITOL OPERATIONS

Ensuring that our customers—both internal and external—can have access to the 

Senate and understand its work remains the focus of the SAA’s Capitol Operations 

team. Over the past year, team members provided a range of services to Senators 

and their staffs, visitors to the Capitol, members of the news media who cover Congress, and the public. Capitol Operations continues to focus on providing timely, accurate, and useful information that promotes safety, increases transparency, and enhances the experience of those who work in and visit the Senate. 

Senate Recording Studio 

In a time of instant communication and demands for transparency, the Senate Recording Studio helps ensure that the work of the Senate remains accessible to the 

public. During 2014, the Recording Studio provided 908 hours of gavel-to-gavel coverage of Senate Floor proceedings. For individuals who prefer to view Senate proceedings online, the Recording Studio also provides technical support for livestreaming and archiving on the Senate’s Web site, www.senate.gov. Last year, this 

online resource was viewed 1.34 million times by more than 136,000 unique visitors. 

Another priority of the Recording Studio is to enable Senators working in DC to 

communicate with their constituents back home. During 2014, the Recording Studio 

produced 787 television and 901 radio productions for Senators. 

Senate Media Galleries 

For members of the news media, the Senate remains one of the most open and 

accessible institutions of Government. On any given day, hundreds of reporters, producers, photographers, videographers, and technical support personnel can be found 

in hearing rooms, hallways, and in the Chamber bringing the news of the Senate 

to people across the country and around the world. Ensuring that the news media 

can conduct their business efficiently, safely, and in a manner consistent with Senate rules is the responsibility of the staff of the four Senate Media Galleries. The 

unique structure of the Media Galleries, dating back to the earliest days of the Senate, requires them to work closely and cooperatively with their respective Standing 

and Executive Correspondents’ Committees, USCP, and press secretaries and communications staff of Senators and Senate committees. Media Gallery staff facilitate 
68 

media credentials and arrangements for the 7,000 members of the news media who 

can cover the Senate in a given year. 

Daily Press Gallery 

Daily Press Gallery staff support reporters working for publications who publish 

on a daily or more frequent basis. Last year, the Daily Press Gallery issued credentials to approximately 1,800 journalists. As custodians of the largest press complex 

on Capitol Hill, the Gallery staff serve more than 100 reporters who physically work 

in the Press Gallery on a regular basis. Gallery staff also help control access to the 

Press Gallery inside the Senate Chamber and ensure Gallery rules are followed. 

Periodical Press Gallery 

The Periodical Press Gallery staff support the news media working for non-daily 

periodicals and their online publications. Last year, the Periodical Press Gallery approved credentials for more than 1,200 journalists. Gallery staff remain focused on 

streamlining communications with Gallery members and Senate staff. For example, 

the number of followers on the Gallery’s Twitter account (@SenatePPG) grew by 

nearly 40 percent, to 3,600, and staff continue to increase the use of Facebook and 

Instagram as well. These efforts help drive traffic to the Gallery’s Web site, where 

information on Floor proceedings, the credentialing process, and other areas of interest is consolidated. The Gallery’s Web site averages approximately 50,000 hits a 

year. 

Press Photographers Gallery 

Press Photographers Gallery staff support photographers representing news organizations from across the United States and around the world. Last year, the Gallery credentialed approximately 300 news photographers. Unlike the other three 

Media Galleries, which have counterparts in the House of Representatives, Press 

Photographers Gallery staff support the media at news events and hearings in both 

houses of Congress. During 2014, the Gallery launched a Twitter account 

(@USSenatePhoto) to keep photographers and Senate staff apprised of congressional 

events; the account has grown to more than 600 followers. 

Radio and Television Gallery 

The task of ensuring that the broadcast media’s needs are met while the Senate’s 

rules are followed falls largely to the staff of the Radio and Television Gallery. The 

Gallery issued credentials to approximately 3,600 television and radio reporters, 

producers, and technical personnel. The Gallery also maintains the studio that Senators use for news conferences. Staff continually look to enhance the appearance 

and functionality in the studio. Last year, the Gallery oversaw installation of a new 

background element consisting of a bookshelf and Senate seal, and additional renovations to the audio system and camera risers are currently under development. 

Gallery staff also oversee upgrades to the technical infrastructure supporting committee hearing rooms and other news event locations. To further enhance communications, the Radio-TV Gallery initiated a Twitter account (@SenateRadioTV) during 2014, with approximately 700 followers to date. 

Senate Doorkeepers 

Senate Doorkeepers play a critical role in supporting the legislative process of the 

Senate. Doorkeepers provide access to those with Senate Floor privileges; enforce 

the rules of the Senate Floor; and facilitate the needs of Senators, Senate Floor 

staff, and Senate Pages. Doorkeepers also provide support for a number of special 

events attended by Senators, their families, and special guests. In addition to directly supporting Senators, Doorkeepers also ensure that all Americans can visit the 

Senate Gallery safely and efficiently. During 2014, approximately 202,000 people 

visited the Senate, in person, with the help of Senate Doorkeepers. That corresponded to nearly 950 people a day, both when the Senate was in session and during scheduled recesses. 

Senate Appointment Desk 

The Senate Appointment Desks are responsible for processing, in a safe and efficient manner, thousands of guests who enter the Capitol each year for business 

meetings or other purposes. During 2014, approximately 184,000 visitors were processed through our network of Appointment Desks located on the first floor of the 

Capitol, in the basements of the Russell and Hart Senate office buildings, and in 

the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). Of these, 116,000 visitors were in the Capitol for 

official business or a direct meeting with a member, a member’s office, or a committee. In addition, more than 2,500 international visitors relied on the CVC Appointment Desk for Senate Gallery Passes and information. 
69 

Office of Internal Communications 

The Office of Internal Communications (OIC) streamlines communication within 

the SAA organization and to the rest of the Senate community through a combination of online, digital, and traditional print publications. Last year, the Office sent 

468 Notices and 101 Dear Colleague messages electronically, saving resources and 

speeding delivery of important information. In addition, OIC manages two Web 

sites—one internal to the SAA and the other accessible to the Senate community— 

and maintains the electronic Notice system. During 2014, OIC staff edited and 

helped produce 175 publications, including safety bulletins, newsletters for both 

Senate and SAA staff, and procedural manuals. Finally, the OIC manages the SAA’s 

use of social media to enhance communication with SAA employees, Senators, the 

Senate community, and the public. Recently, the SAA Twitter account 

(@SenateSAA) exceeded 7,400 followers and our Facebook page surpassed 4,000 

‘‘likes,’’ both substantial increases from a year ago. 

SAA HUMAN RESOURCES

The primary function of the SAA Office of Human Resources is to provide personnel services and advice to SAA managers and employees. The SAA Human Resources department also provides workers’ compensation, ergonomic assessment, 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation requests, and recruitment 

services to the broader Senate community. 

Senate Placement Office 

During fiscal year 2014, Senate offices submitted 513 requests for recruitment assistance to the Senate Placement Office; 49,401 resumes were processed by the 

Placement Office in response to these requests. Since the start of fiscal year 2015, 

the Senate Placement Office provided 2,404 resumes for vacancies on the staffs of 

Senators-elect and processed an additional 1,044 resumes for vacancies in other 

Senate offices and committees. 

SENATE OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Office of Education and Training provides training for all Senate staff in 

Washington, DC, and in State offices. We provide performance skills training on topics such as management and leadership development, human resources management, legislative and staff information, and new staff and intern orientation. The 

office also provides much of the training for approved software and equipment used 

at the Senate. Our technical offerings include system administration, MS Office 

Suite, Photoshop, and digital photography, and Senate-specific applications training. 

In addition, we coordinate and provide major training events for State and DC staff. 

Training is provided through a variety of methods. These include instructor-led 

classes, one-on-one coaching sessions, facilitation, computer-based training, online 

lessons, Webinars, videoconferencing, informal training, documentation, and selfpaced training. 

The Office of Education and Training partners with other training providers, both 

inside and outside of the legislative branch, to ensure the Senate staff have the 

training and skills they need to perform their jobs. In 2014, these partnerships included the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Senate Library, 

Government Accountability Office, Capitol.net, the SAA Office of Protective Services 

and Continuity, Senate Historian, Office of Attending Physician, Employee Assistance Program, Chief Counsel on Employment, Office of Congressional Accessibility, 

SAA Human Resources, Senate Disbursing Office, Senate Ethics Committee, and 

others. 

In 2014, the Office of Education and Training and its partners provided 735 instructor-led classes with a total attendance of over 3,000 students. Education and 

Training staff taught over 250 of the 735 instructor-led classes, at which over 1,900 

staff attended. Education and Training provided customized training, facilitation 

services, and coaching to more than 150 Senate member, committee, and support 

offices, benefitting more than 1,400 staff. Our trainers spent approximately 600 

hours performing training or facilitation in everything from 1-hour sessions to 2 to 

4 day-long retreats. We also coordinate the Senate’s Intern Program. We provide 

training for intern coordinators as well as eight orientation and training sessions 

throughout the year; approximately 1,500 interns attended in 2014. 

After every election, we coordinate the Aides to the Senators-elect orientation and 

new office Admin Directors training. This 2-day orientation consists of 10 different 

sessions with 20–30 attendees. After swearing-in, we coordinate another 10–12 sessions for the office management. Each session is attended by 10–15 staff. 
70 

Health Promotion 

Our Health Promotion office has been legislatively mandated to provide Health 

Promotion activities and events. Our Health Promotion branch coordinates and runs 

the 2-day Health and Wellness Fair for Senate staff. At this fair, Senate staff can 

meet vendors who promote healthy living choices and who provide screening and 

testing for things such as bone density, hearing, cholesterol, and others. In 2014, 

over 500 staff participated in health promotion activities, which included lung function and kidney screenings, blood drives, and seminars on health-related topics. We 

also coordinate Weight Watchers, Yoga, and Pilates sessions using a revolving fund. 

We plan to increase our conference offerings to include one for State Schedulers and 

for member and committee management. These conferences will provide staff who 

do similar jobs a place and time to share what is working and get ideas from one 

another. 

We will continue to expand our online training options for Capitol Hill and State 

staff. We are rolling out an Online Leadership curriculum for Senate managers and 

continue to work with our training partners to provide just-in-time training. Our office also plans to bring in experts to conduct presentations and training on timely 

management and legislative topics to complement the training that is already offered. Some of these topics will include Appropriations and Authorizations, and 

Managing Remote Staff, among others. 

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Our Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offers a variety of emotional, behavioral 

and work-related support resources and services to staff, their family members, Senate Pages, and interns. In 2014, nearly 1 in 20 Senate employees utilized the services of an EAP counselor; 370 employees took an online mental health screening; 

177 managers requested a supervisory consultation; 3,277 employees attended an 

EAP training activity; and 1,946 employees accessed resources for personalized information and referrals addressing childcare, parenting, adult care, aging, education, legal concerns, and/or financial issues. 

CONCLUSION

The Sergeant at Arms is composed of a diverse array of organizations. All of them 

exist to serve the Senate so that it can function as part of the legislative branch 

of our Government. To provide the checks and balances on any administration, it 

must be able to function efficiently in an effort to create and pass legislation. To 

do so, the Senate Sergeant at Arms must and will provide the needed services that 

allow it to function. 

APPENDIX A 

OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS—UNITED STATES SENATE

FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal Year 

2015 Enacted 

Fiscal Year 

2016 Request 

General Operations & Maintenance: 

Salaries .................................................................................................................................. $69,000 $72,000 

Expenses ................................................................................................................................ 73,267 66,262 

Total General Operations & Maintenance ......................................................................... 142,267 138,262 

Mandated Allowances & Allotments ............................................................................................... 47,141 46,858 

Capital Investment ......................................................................................................................... 1,957 15,051 

Nondiscretionary Items ................................................................................................................... 5,935 5,803 

Total ................................................................................................................................... $197,300 $205,974 

Staffing ........................................................................................................................................... 892 892 

To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of security, support services, and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2016 budget request of $205,974,000, 

an increase of $8,674,000 or 4.4 percent compared to fiscal year 2015. The salary 

budget request is $72,000,000, an increase of $3,000,000 or 4.3 percent, and the ex-
71 

pense budget request is $133,974,000, an increase of $5,574,000 or 4.4 percent. The 

staffing request remains at 892. 

There are four budget 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 $72,000,000, 

an increase of $3,000,000 or 4.3 percent compared to fiscal year 2015. 

The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for existing 

services is $66,262,000, a decrease of $7,005,000 or 9.6 percent compared to fiscal 

year 2015. 

The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is $46,858,000. This 

budget supports State office rents, $19,691,000; purchase of computer and office 

equipment, $10,318,000; voice and data communications for Washington, DC, and 

State offices, $5,609,000; procurement and maintenance of member office constituent services systems, $5,500,000; RPC and DPC recording studios, $2,600,000; 

wireless services and equipment, $1,473,000; and State office security enhancements, $1,472,000. 

The capital investments budget request is $15,051,000, for DC network equipment 

upgrade, $6,290,000; storage area network, $3,726,000; Chamber audio upgrade, 

$1,900,000; and Network Management Equipment Upgrade, $1,840,000. 

The nondiscretionary items budget request is $5,803,000. The request funds 

projects that support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial Management Information System, $2,819,000; support for the payroll system, $2,359,000; and maintenance and necessary enhancements to the Legislative 

Information System, $625,000. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Chief Dine. 
(72) 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIM C. DINE, CHIEF OF POLICE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DANIEL MALLOY, ASSISTANT CHIEF AND CHIEF OF OPERATIONS 

RICHARD BRADDOCK, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

FAY F. ROPELLA, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Chief DINE. Thank you and good morning. 

I would also ask that my full statement be accepted for the 

record. 

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the 

subcommittee, I am honored to be here today and I appreciate the 

opportunity to present the United States Capitol Police budget request for fiscal year 2016. 

I am joined here today by Assistant Chief Daniel Malloy, our 

Chief of Operations, and Mr. Richard Braddock, our Chief Administrative Officer, as well as some members of my executive management team and our Inspector General. 

First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its sustained 

and unwavering support for the United States Capitol Police. I 

would specifically like to express our appreciation to the subcommittee and the Congress for providing the necessary salaries 

and general expenses funding for fiscal year 2015 to support our 

personnel and operations. The women and men of the Capitol Police work tirelessly to ensure that the legislative process of our 

Government functions without disruption or lapses in security or 

safety 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. But none of this would be 

possible without your support and that of the Capitol Police Board. 

My management team and I are very proud of the close partnership that has evolved between us to make this possible. Your confidence in us and the support you have provided to the Capitol Police over the years has, indeed, been a remarkable contributor to 

our success in achieving our mission. You and your staff have 

taken the time to work closely with the department’s leadership 

team and have shown a keen awareness of the complexity of our 

mission and the challenges we face. 

While our mission has not changed, the scope of the threats that 

we face is changing, and the ways in which we continue to adapt 

to those threats has to change. We will continue to meet our mission by finding ways to sharpen and adapt our capabilities while 

remaining true to our core values. Our ability to thwart attacks 

and safeguard the Capitol complex hinges on our flexibility to 

adapt operations and administrative capabilities to the changing 

environment. 

During fiscal year 2014, we were able to provide training to our 

officers in areas of active shooter and security screening, which are 

key skills that need to be constantly refreshed for our officers in 
73 

this environment. In addition, the department was awarded the 

Gold Standard in Advanced Law Enforcement Accreditation, our 

fifth accreditation, from the Commission on Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies. The Gold Standard is awarded to law enforcement agencies that have exhibited strong organizational 

health and an absence of issues that detract from the professionalism of the agency. Assessors were on site validating policies 

and procedures, interviewing employees, and performing field observations. 

At this time, I would like to offer the subcommittee an overarching summary of our fiscal year 2016 request. I will follow this 

summary with a discussion of specific budget items of particular 

significance to you and the department. The department’s fiscal year 2016 request totals nearly $379 mil- lion and represents an overall increase of 8.9 percent, or nearly $31 

million over fiscal year 2015 enacted funding level of $348 million. 

As with other law enforcement agencies, personnel salaries and 

overtime represent the majority of our budget each year. As you 

know, we are a service organization, and we need dedicated and 

trained professionals to provide that service. 

Our fiscal year 2016 request, again, only includes funding for 

1,775 sworn and 370 civilian positions. These are the staffing levels 

funded during fiscal year 2015. While the staffing levels remain 

static in the fiscal year 2016 request, the funding request represents an overall increase of approximately 7 percent over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This increase is necessary to address 

the natural salary increases incurred by the department and increased overtime costs to meet our needs, especially for the 2016 

presidential conventions. 

The second area I want to cover in some detail is our requested 

general expenses budget, which includes protective travel; hiring, 

outfitting, and training of new sworn personnel; supplies and 

equipment; management systems; non-personnel presidential convention support and other non-personnel needs. We are requesting 

$71.4 million for general expenses, which is an increase of $10 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. No new initiatives or 

program increases are included in this request. The increase results from normal increases in operating costs, convention costs, 

and cost to lifecycle key items and routine equipment and systems, 

and the restoration of annual levels reduced in previous fiscal 

years to meet regular needs. 

With resources provided to the department, our officers provide 

a safe environment for the facilities of Capitol Hill. For the U.S. 

Capitol Building alone, we provide a secure and open environment 

for well over 1.5 million square feet, over 600 rooms, approximately 

850 doorways, and miles of corridors, which speaks to the vast 

magnitude of our mission and how our ability to remain agile and 

prepared to respond is key to the accomplishment of our mission. 

In fiscal year 2014, the department performed over 9.6 million 

screenings of people entering congressional buildings, including 

over 1.4 million visitors to the Capitol Visitor Center. Outside the 

buildings, we kept the Capitol grounds safe by conducting more 

than 125,000 K–9 vehicle sweeps and nearly 27,000 offsite vehicle 

inspections. 
74 

Further, we continue to work to close audit recommendations 

and to address our material weaknesses from prior audits by working very closely with our Inspector General and the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) to address identified issues and by providing evidence necessary to close findings. In particular, I am 

pleased to report the department received a fourth consecutive unqualified clean opinion on our financial statements. Also in fiscal 

year 2014, we worked closely with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to close 29 recommendations and completed actions that 

we believe could lead to closure of another eight recommendations. 

Also, the department successfully closed all findings from outstanding GAO reports and closed four complete OIG audits that 

have been open since 2008. Further, we are working on the resolution of a number of other recommendations in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of our administrative programs. The longterm resolution of recommendations related to internal controls, 

business processes, and material weaknesses remains of the highest importance to our management team. 

I am very grateful for your time today. We will continue to work 

closely with you to make sure that we meet the needs of our mission in a reasonable and responsible manner. I want to thank the 

women and men of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) for 

their commitment to our mission and for their support. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today and we would be glad 

to answer any questions you may have at this time. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KIM C. DINE

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz and members of the subcommittee, I 

am honored to be here today, and I appreciate the opportunity to present the United 

States Capitol Police budget request for fiscal year 2016. I am joined here today by 

Assistant Chief Daniel Malloy, our Chief of Operations, and Mr. Richard Braddock, 

our Chief Administrative Officer, as well as some of the members of my Executive 

Management Team and our Inspector General. 

First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its sustained and unwavering 

support of the United States Capitol Police. I would specifically like to express our 

appreciation to the subcommittee and the Congress for providing the necessary salaries and general expenses funding for fiscal year 2015 to support our personnel and 

operations. The women and men of the Capitol Police work tirelessly to ensure that 

the legislative process of our Government functions without disruption or lapses in 

security or safety 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. But none of this would be possible without your support and that of the Capitol Police Board. 

My management team and I are very proud of the close partnership that has 

evolved between us to make this possible. Your confidence in us, and the support 

you have provided to the Capitol Police over the years, has indeed been a remarkable contributor to our success in achieving our mission. You and your staff have 

taken the time to work closely with the Department’s leadership team and have 

shown a keen awareness of the complexity of our mission and the challenges we 

face. 

While our mission has not changed, the scope of the threats that we face is changing—and the ways in which we continue to adapt to those threats has to change. 

We will continue to meet our mission by finding ways to sharpen and adapt our capabilities while remaining true to our core values. Our ability to thwart attacks and 

safeguard the Capitol Complex hinges on our flexibility to adapt operations and administrative capabilities to the changing environment. 

Before I begin the specifics of my fiscal year 2016 budget request I would like to 

express again our appreciation to the subcommittee and the Congress for providing 

the essential salaries and general expenses funding for fiscal year 2015 to support 

our personnel and operations, which has ensured a high-level of capability and mission readiness. 
75 

During fiscal year 2014, we were able to provide training to all of our officers in 

the areas of active shooter and security screening, which are key skills that need 

to be constantly refreshed for our officers in this environment. In addition, the Department was awarded the Gold Standard in Advanced Law Enforcement Accreditation, our fifth Accreditation, from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. The Gold Standard is awarded to law enforcement agencies that 

have exhibited strong organizational health and an absence of issues that detract 

from the professionalism of the agency. Assessors were onsite validating policies and 

procedures, interviewing employees, and performing field observations. 

Our fiscal year 2016 mission-focused request is grounded in the framework of our 

Strategic Plan. To achieve our vision as a nationally recognized results-oriented law 

enforcement organization, the Department continues to reinforce a culture that supports effective planning, communication, accountability and employee empowerment. 

We are developing the internal framework to employ smart policing by taking a results-oriented, data-driven approach that effectively meets current and future 

threats and challenges. We will continue to deliver safety and security by deploying 

effective law enforcement services through collaboration, adaptability and innovation. We will strive for organizational excellence to maximize efficiency and effectiveness through best practices, while promoting accountability through employee 

engagement and a positive work environment. As we carry out these programs, employees are engaged through routine communications and are given an opportunity 

to provide feedback. 

At this time, I would like to offer the subcommittee an overarching summary of 

our fiscal year 2016 request. I will follow this summary with a discussion of specific 

budget items of particular significance to you and the Department. The Department’s fiscal year 2016 request totals nearly $379 million and rep- resents an overall increase of 8.9 percent, or nearly $31 million over the fiscal year 

2015 enacted funding level of $348 million. 

As with other law enforcement agencies, personnel salaries and overtime represent the majority of our budget each year. As you know, we are a service organization, and we need dedicated and trained professionals to provide that service. 

The Department’s fiscal year 2016 personnel request reflects our continuous efforts at all levels of management to effectively and prudently manage our existing 

resources to achieve the best possible balance of staff versus overtime to meet mission requirements. We are constantly analyzing our workforce to align job functions, 

assignments, workload, risk management, and organizational readiness along with 

the ever-changing threat assessments and mandatory mission requirements within 

a dynamic environment. 

In light of the fiscal constraints of the Department and the entire Federal Government, our fiscal year 2016 request again only includes funding for 1,775 sworn and 

370 civilian positions. These are the staffing levels funded during fiscal year 2015. 

While the staffing levels remain static in the fiscal year 2016 request, the funding 

request represents an overall increase of approximately 7 percent over the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. This increase is necessary to addresses the natural salary 

increases incurred by the Department, and increased overtime costs to meet our 

needs, especially for the 2016 presidential conventions. 

As you are aware, the Department’s current sworn staffing levels do not entirely 

provide the necessary resources to meet all our mission requirements within the established sworn officer utility or the number of work-hours in a year that each officer is available to perform work. This ‘‘utility’’ number is used to determine overall 

staffing requirements, and balances the utility of available staff with annual salary 

and overtime funding along with known mission requirements such as post coverage, projected unscheduled events such as demonstrations, late sessions and holiday concerts, and unfunded requirements that occur after the budget is enacted, 

such as unforeseen critical emergency situations. Because of the need to fill the mission requirement gap through overtime, the Department has struggled to pull our 

sworn personnel offline to conduct training. In order to achieve mandatory training, 

we must utilize overtime to ensure that the officers may be offline for training, 

while meeting our daily mission requirements. There are flexibilities in other law 

enforcement agencies in offsetting or deferring daily requirements to allow for training that our unique mission does not afford. 

Thus, mission requirements in excess of available personnel must be addressed 

through the identification of efficiencies such as post realignment and/or reductions, 

technology, and cutbacks within the utility. Where necessary, we meet this requirement through the use of overtime. The Department is currently in the process of 

implementing an automated scheduling system to find more efficiency through information-based management, while developing training and guidance for supervisors 

on methods for reducing overtime. Once fully implemented, this will result in en-
76 

hancements to a number of policies and procedures that have a direct and indirect 

impact on our overtime needs. At the requested funded staffing levels, the Department’s fiscal year 2016 overtime projection is $30.9 million. This amount will cover 

base mission requirements, the conventions, our support of non-reimbursable events 

at the Library of Congress and the ability for sworn employees to be backfilled while 

they attend necessary and mandatory training. 

The second area I want to cover in some detail is our requested general expenses 

budget, which includes protective travel; hiring, outfitting, and training of new 

sworn personnel; supplies and equipment; management systems; non-personnel 

presidential convention support and other non-personnel needs. We are requesting 

$71.4 million for general expenses, which is an increase of $10 million over the fiscal 

year 2015 enacted level. No new initiatives or program increases are included in 

this request. The increase results from normal increases in operating costs, convention costs, the cost to life cycle key items and routine equipment and systems, and 

the restoration of annual levels reduced in previous fiscal years to meet regular Department needs. 

With resources provided to the Department, our officers provide a safe environment for the facilities of Capitol Hill. For the U.S. Capitol Building alone, we provided a secure and open environment for well over 1.5 million square feet, over 600 

rooms, approximately 850 doorways, and miles of corridors; which speaks to the vast 

magnitude of our mission and how our ability to remain agile and prepared to respond is key to the accomplishment of our mission. In fiscal year 2014, the Department performed over 9.6 million screenings of people entering congressional buildings (including over 1.4 million visitors to the Capitol Visitor Center). Outside the 

buildings we kept the Capitol grounds safe by conducting more than 125,000 K–9 

vehicle sweeps and nearly 27,000 offsite vehicle inspections. 

For the fifth year in a row, the Department has implemented uniform procedures 

to effectively measure and justify U.S. Capitol Police planning, program, and resource requirements through a comprehensive, standardized, and repeatable management process, which we call the ‘‘Force Development Business Process.’’ It provides for a transparent decisionmaking process, including reviews and approvals by 

an Investment Review Board made up of key agency management, and provides a 

structure that is results-driven and based on meeting operational needs. In addition, 

in order to ensure the accuracy of our budget request, our fiscal year 2016 budget 

went through multiple layers of review and validation, and is traceable to supporting documentation for each budget element. 

Further, we continue our work to close audit recommendations and to address our 

material weaknesses from prior audits by working closely with our Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office to address identified issues and by 

providing the evidence necessary to close findings. In particular, I am pleased to report that the Department received a fourth consecutive unqualified ‘‘clean’’ opinion 

on our financial statements. Also in fiscal year 2014, we have worked closely with 

the Office of Inspector General to close 29 recommendations and have completed actions that we believe could lead to closure of another eight recommendations. Also, 

the Department successfully closed all findings from outstanding GAO reports and 

closed four complete OIG audits that have been open since 2008. Further, we are 

working on the resolution of a number of other recommendations in order to achieve 

efficiency and effectiveness of our administrative programs. The long-term resolution of recommendations related to internal controls, business processes and material weaknesses remains of the highest importance to our management team. 

I am grateful for your time today. We will continue to work closely with you to 

make sure that we meet the needs of our mission in a reasonable and responsible 

manner. I want to thank the women and men of the USCP for their commitment 

to our mission and their support. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today and would be glad to answer any questions you may have at this time. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I thank all three of you for your testimony, and I join the voice of my ranking member here in thanking you for what you do for us every day and the general public 

and really for the country. So I want to make sure I get that on 

the record as well. 

I want to begin with questions for the Secretary of the Senate. 

You have asked for a request to upgrade the Financial Management Information System (FMIS). But as I understand it, you are 

going to have 6 years of budget requests to get you fully up to 

speed. In my view, 6 years is a lifetime in any kind of computer 
77 

programming or software, and my concern is—and I am wondering 

if you have the same concern—is it possible by the time you get 

to full implementation, you are behind the curve again? What 

would your comments be on that? 

Ms. ADAMS. That is a good question. I think anytime a 6-year 

project—certainly that does probably raise some eyebrows. But our 

team, our planners have really done a lot of their homework to put 

this plan into place. And the software that we will procure will be 

software that will still work when it is fully modernized. They will 

be purchasing the stuff that is in production. While we are moving 

through the phases, if they know that the third phase has gotten 

new software that we will need, they will make sure that it is the 

most current form that is available. And we will all be supported 

when we are done. But I understand. Six years does sound like a 

long time. 

The benefit of doing it over 6 years, though, is truly—I want to 

make sure all the stakeholders that use FMIS have a system that 

works in the end that truly works for them. And by jamming it in 

in a shorter period of time, my concern is that we will not meet 

all the needs of the Senate in that amount of time. The shortest 

amount of time that we could do this in would be 3 years, and that 

would really be pushing it. We would likely need to add some additional full-time equivalents (FTE’s) to that in order to support it, 

and there would also be some stuff for them on the Sergeant at 

Arms side in terms of their support. Making sure that we have 

staff that is up to speed and that they can support it when it is 

done, the 6 years gives us the time to get staff up to speed so that 

when it is done, we are not having to use contractor support and 

we have more internal support. 

Senator CAPITO. So basically the 6-year timeline, if you were to 

squeeze it down—that was going to be my next question. Can you 

get it done in 3 years? Can you get it done in 1 year? Basically you 

are telling me that is not the advice that you are—— 

Ms. ADAMS. It is not the advice that our folks that have done all 

the planning—they have looked at other Federal agencies that 

have systems to see how long do these sort of things take to implement. And, you know, 3 years is really pushing it. That would be 

the minimum number that we would be able to. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, maybe this time next year, when you have 

implemented the first year, we can return to this question because 

I think it is something that we want to make sure we are modernizing to the point where it actually is modern at the time that it 

concludes. 

Ms. ADAMS. I agree. I agree. 

Senator CAPITO. I would like to ask the Sergeant at Arms. You 

mentioned your priorities, safety and security, cyber health, customer relations, preparedness and partnerships. You know, just a 

general question about number one on the safety and security 

issue. Obviously, there are threats everywhere. What kind of coordination are you doing in terms of being able to assess what a 

terrorist threat to the Capitol is? I mean, I am probably the only 

one of the five of us—well, maybe Julie was here. I know you were 

in DC at the time on September the 11th. And I understand you 

were in New York City. You know, as time has gone on here on 
78 

the Capitol complex, I know we still have the heightened awareness of that. But are the threats more, less, or without being too 

specific, could you give us an idea of where you see these threats 

presently on the Capitol complex itself? 

Mr. LARKIN. Absolutely, Chairman. 

The threat picture right now is very dynamic. And again, I think 

that you can look at the information that we are getting from the 

media and also from companion testimony from other Government 

leaders up here on the Hill recently. We are in an environment 

where we have a full spectrum of threat that not only encompasses 

what we have seen overseas associated with al Qaeda, ISIL, ISIS, 

and others, but then we are seeing more and more here on the domestic front where we are encountering self-radicalized or self-motivated individuals. And some of these individuals are in communications with folks outside our domestic environment, again taking direction, somewhat supported either financially or with information resources. And then there are others that are fully independent, and they are the ones that remain the toughest target in 

the sense of identifying them in advance of some type of act that 

they would like to perform. 

The only way that we are going to be able to stay ahead of this 

is, as you alluded to, close communications and coordination with 

our Federal partners and in some cases with some of our trusted 

allies who, again, are dealing with much of the same challenge, 

both with their assets overseas and their own homelands. We are 

in daily contact with the intelligence community. We are in daily 

contact, again, both with the House Sergeant at Arms Office and 

the U.S. Capitol Police, with our law enforcement partners, the 

FBI, Secret Service, Park Police, the folks that are generic to the 

Capitol campus but we are also in touch with law enforcement 

agencies that have a nexus to each of the member offices in their 

respective States of jurisdiction. 

And again, as we see telltales or indicators that something is not 

right, we are very aggressive in pursuing and getting to the bottom 

of exactly what is taking place. And together with that is being 

able to get effective notifications out to members and staffs and so 

forth so that they have a level of awareness that we are working 

something, that we have got it contained, or its in motion and that 

they need to, along with our assets, increase their vigilance. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you and thank you for that. I think the 

communication is much improved over what it has been, and I 

think that is something that we need to keep on top of. 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE MORALE

To the Chief, we talked just briefly as I came in. We talked about 

the situation last night in Ferguson with two police officers being 

shot, and I do not know what the details of that are now but it certainly is a tragedy for everybody. 

And I know that there have been some morale questions for the 

Capitol Police. Certainly the greater question of law enforcement in 

general—you have been in this field for decades. We are having 

sort of a national discussion. Are you finding within the Capitol Police these same kind of pushes and pulls between the general pub-
79 

lic and law enforcement? What is your perspective on that? And 

how do you perceive the morale of the Capitol Police right now? 

Chief DINE. Well, to the first part, the pushes and pulls I think 

that law enforcement face across the country sort of highlight the 

uniqueness of the U.S. Capitol Police. We are essentially an amalgamation of multiple law enforcement agencies rolled into one. A 

lot is asked of our agency, and it highlights the importance that we 

maintain the nimbleness and ability to confront all types of threats 

and issues as we provide safety and security throughout the Capitol complex. That is very critical. We are kind of a combination of 

an urban department. We do investigations. We do a lot of intelligence work, and we have continued to raise the bar as it relates 

to intelligence. The challenge is pushing that type of information 

out to our entire agency so that we can continue to provide safety 

and security not only here but to member offices, deal with threats, 

and investigations. Obviously our checkpoints and our doors are 

critical, which is why the training is so important to our agency, 

and we appreciate the support you provided us. 

One of the unique challenges that we face is training. Unlike 

more traditional agencies, when we provide training to our officers, 

we have to take officers offline and then use overtime to fill those 

back positions. More traditional departments can significantly 

change the level of staffing out in the street from day-to-day and 

tour-to-tour. Part of that points then to my mission of making sure 

that our agency from top to bottom is cohesive, that we have a cohesive management team that understands the mission that we 

face and those nuances and the uniqueness of who we are and 

what we do. I think that relates often to the morale piece. It is imperative that we understand that we are one police organization 

that is more important than any one individual, that we understand what our roles and responsibilities are, and the more and 

better people understand that, which is my role as Chief of Police 

to make sure the management team and all of our leaders and 

managers and officials within the agency are a cohesive team. And 

in that way, we can best address the morale. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE OFFICERS

Just a real quick question. Then I will ask my ranking member. 

I want to get on the record, Chief—I asked you when I was over 

at your headquarters what percent of your force is female. Could 

you put that on the record for us? 

Chief DINE. Yes, ma’am. We are proud of the fact that it is about 

18 percent. 

Senator CAPITO. I think you are doing better than the Senate. 

Senator Schatz. 

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF SEQUESTER LEVELS IN FISCAL YEAR 2016

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The Budget Control Act imposes spending caps that were designed to limit discretionary spending. And I support and many 

others support adjusting those caps to a more responsible level, 

which would be closer in line with the request your agencies have 

made to the subcommittee. 
80 

The cap in place for fiscal year 2016 would provide a .2 percent 

increase over the 2015 level. Yet, today we are examining an increase of almost 9 percent for Capitol Police, 4.4 percent for the 

Sergeant at Arms, and 9.6 percent for the Secretary of the Senate. 

And I should say I find these increases to be totally reasonable, but 

not fundable unless we deal with the sequester. 

Chief Dine, the adjustments in the Budget Control Act (BCA) 

caps in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 allowed your force to restore the 

number of sworn officers protecting the campus to pre-sequester 

levels and allowed the force to reinstate training that had been 

canceled under sequester. And I understand you were able to put 

all of the officers through active shooter training. I am worried that 

these activities will be difficult, if not impossible, to afford if we go 

back to the sequester. Your budget request includes $17.4 million 

just to maintain the current number of officers, plus an additional 

$13.5 million for critical back-of-the-house support such as replacing 35 computer servers that are past their warranty. 

So, Chief, if the budget for the Capitol Police was limited to the 

current sequester levels, would you have to reduce the number of 

officers on patrol, and what would happen to training? 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. Thank you. I think there are several key 

points. Our fiscal year 2016 budget request includes approximately $5 

million of a one-time costs for the protection we provide for the 

presidential conventions that was not part of the fiscal year 2015 

budget. This is a longstanding function in which we engage every 

4 years and does require additional funds primarily for overtime 

and travel costs. Nearly $2 million in overtime and $3 million in 

travel costs go to fund these activities. 

Secondly, the enacted level of the fiscal year 2015 budget for salaries is less than the amount needed to fund the fiscal year 2016 

to fully fund, as you noted, the 1,775 sworn and 370 civilians’ overtime and training costs. There are increases in salaries due to normal salary increases for the existing staff, annualization of the 

2015 living increase, increases in benefit costs, and also the additional day of pay due to leap year in fiscal year 2016 that are not 

matched over fiscal year 2015. 

If the funding levels for fiscal year 2016 are to be frozen at the 

fiscal year 2015 levels, it will require us to absorb the above increases in salaries and the one-time presidential convention costs. 

We projected that will force us to reduce our staff by approximately 

250 people, which is significant. In addition, we would have to cancel necessary training for the planned officers and, as we discussed, 

training for our department is critical in all phases. 

This type of reduction in staff will force us to reduce—curtail coverage in critical areas impacting the normal functioning of the Capitol complex such as reduction or elimination of mission support to 

minimal levels, reduce protection and coverage of the congressional 

leadership, reduce threat validation significantly, reduce post coverage, and an inability to potentially provide coverage for certain 

response capability and services. It may also affect our hazardous 

material and hazardous device responses. 

Obviously, what will be required and what we continually do is 

to work with our stakeholders to make sure the required reductions 
81 

take place without creating significant security issues. These reductions will result in impacts to access and convenience areas 

throughout the complex, however. 

Senator SCHATZ. But there would be fewer officers on patrol, less 

money for training, if any money for training. 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHATZ. And as a result, fewer doors and less training. 

That is just as a starting point. 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chief. 

Mr. Sergeant at Arms, assuming flat funding for 2016, would the 

Sergeant at Arms Office have to delay the requested upgrades for 

the IT systems, or would you be able to make adjustments in other 

places? 

Mr. LARKIN. Senator, first of all, I think you have to look at your 

question in two prongs, at least from the Sergeant at Arms. One 

is the personnel and the other is non-personnel expense. 

With regard to personnel, we could probably absorb that strain 

internally, and part of that is due to the fact that we have an ongoing effort right now to look at our job tasks and our personnel that 

are matched against those job tasks to see if they are still relevant. 

And in some cases, we are re-engineering and repurposing our personnel as we see evolutions in technology where the technology can 

take up for some of the FTE work, applying that, and balancing 

that, and it is an ongoing process. 

The other aspect of the personnel is that we are converting some 

of our contractor positions over to Government positions, which 

then yield savings to our bottom line. 

Now, on the equipment side—and they are both linked—is that 

we would have to prioritize our equipment investments and certainly our refresh and either extending our refresh out, which is 

sort of the situation that we were in here about 2 months ago 

where because decisions were previously made to extend the refresh of equipment, we found ourselves challenged one night, as 

you are well aware. And we were able to quickly recover, but yet 

it certainly brought to everyone’s—to the forefront what can happen when a critical component fails unexpectedly. 

Now, what I feel will suffer is—and again, this is about 

prioritization—extending those refreshes, potentially pushing other 

equipment change-out or software change-outs further out to other 

budget years. What I think would suffer would be innovation. And 

again, I go back to some of the technical advances that we see 

allow us to create a level of increase in efficiencies and savings that 

I think that would also suffer. So we would wind up in that do loop 

of trying to keep our lips above water and support the Senate effectively. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Adams, I assume under the BCA levels, you would 

have to delay the upgrade of your financial management system? 

Ms. ADAMS. Yes, Senator, we would. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much. 
82 

PREPARATION FOR POPE FRANCIS VISIT

I have a quick question about the preparation for the visit of 

Pope Francis this September, and if you could just briefly talk, 

each of you, about how you are preparing for it just operationally. 

But the other question I have is do you bake in an assumption 

about visiting dignitaries, or is something on the order of magnitude of Pope Francis visiting—you are not able to kind of regularly account for it in your annual budgeting process? Is this going 

to be a hit to your budget, or can you absorb it? That is one question. 

The other question is what you are doing operationally to make 

sure it is smooth and safe. Maybe starting with the Chief. 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir, thank you. 

Our Office of Administration estimates the costs for these types 

of events, based on the requirements that are provided by our operations, and those costs and the planning around those costs is 

based on a risk/threat, available intelligence, and appropriate response and duration of those types of events obviously. 

Normally we project a certain number of hours to be used for 

these types of unscheduled events. Usually it is about 20,000 

hours. But that is based on the events that we know of, such as 

Congressional Delegation trips (CODEL’s), known protests such as 

the annual national grass-roots organization of disability rights activists (ADAPT) type protests and other special events that normally occur during the year that cannot be projected for any type 

of pay period. The demonstrations and anticipated activity resulting—as you mentioned earlier, surrounding things like Ferguson, 

the Concert of Valor which took place right next to us this past 

summer, the Israeli prime minister visit, and the Pope visit later 

this year—those were not anticipated, and those are in excess of 

the 20,000 hours that we currently budget. It is a combination of 

fluidity in terms of us budgeting for those types of events which we 

know about and can foresee and project and those that are not. 

For example, the Ferguson west front event required the deployment of our civil disturbance unit, utilizing approximately 2,500 

hours of overtime and associated enhancements and then we had 

to continue those. The papal visit will be significant in planning 

and scope, similar to an inauguration or perhaps even surpassing 

that. We anticipate very, very, large crowds all during that day, 

much earlier than prior to even before the Pope coming up to the 

Capitol, lining all the streets. It is a huge and very significant 

event. 

Now, we do a great job. Our officers do an outstanding job working with the law enforcement community both here in the region 

and across the country. We work in the field with them seamlessly, 

and as you know—you have been to our command center. During 

those major events, if one came to our command center, you would 

see all of our partner agencies there working with us. But that is 

a huge event that goes above and beyond our budget. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Larkin. 

Mr. LARKIN. Thank you, Senator. 
83 

For the events that we know that occur each year on the calendar, again, they are easy to forecast and provide a projection. It 

is for these events that, again, occur out of cycle from our budget 

cycle where, again, we can take a hit financially on the amount of 

resources that we have to apply to effect support for those visits, 

the papal visit being a good example. 

Right now, it appears that we are in a good place. However, we 

do not know what we do not know. They are actively planning. The 

State Department is working with the Vatican and also local resources here to really scope what that visit is going to entail. The 

Metropolitan Police Department, a great department, is one that 

we have a great relationship with them. But the fact is no one police department in DC can lift the strain of this visit alone. So it 

really requires a significant mutual aid effort that not only involves 

the departments here in the District of Columbia but also involve 

outside resources. And all those resources need to be coordinated, 

need to be supported in order to address what we fully expect to 

be a mass of humanity that will show up for this event. I have been 

involved in a number of papal events and have protected a number 

of Popes, and it is unlike any other—the closest comparison would 

be an inaugural. But this will go over and above an inaugural. 

In addition, depending on where he goes on the eastern seaboard, 

we could very well be asked to contribute personnel to other cities 

such as Philadelphia and New York just by virtue of the fact that 

our police officers here, our departments here are very familiar 

with these type of events, and as his events take place in other cities, there could be a mutual aid request to send and deploy forces 

there in support. 

Senator SCHATZ. Ms. Adams. 

Ms. ADAMS. We do not anticipate any new costs for the Secretary’s Office. Our involvement in events—you know, so far I have 

only participated in a couple of these with the State of the Union 

and the most recent visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu. But our 

Office of Interparliamentary Services will work with the Sergeant 

at Arms Protocol Office, but there should not be any new costs that 

come to our office. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

And we here want to make sure that this is successful and seamless and safe. And then on the budgeting side, on the appropriations side, maybe we can at least stay in touch to see—I know it 

is going to be a moving target, but I would sure hate for the chair 

to be surprised next year about a shortfall. But there is no reason 

to do anything less than everything that is necessary to make sure 

that everybody, including and especially the Pope, is safe. 

DRONES AND DEFENSE TACTICS

Chief Dine, I have a question about drones. Last month, drones 

were spotted flying all over Paris, hovering over the Eiffel Tower. 

We know that a hobbiest voluntarily admitted to flying over onto 

White House grounds. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

has released proposed drones regulations, setting some restrictions, 

but largely allowing private drone use. And without getting into a 

classified conversation or any of your operational plans, I would 

just like you to talk a little bit about how you are ensuring that 
84 

the Capitol Police have the latest and best information on drone capabilities and potential defense tactics. 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

The Capitol Police actually has had an airspace coordinator for 

the past 12 years, and we actively work with other law enforcement partners on a variety of issues, including the challenges we 

face regarding the unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. In fact, 2 

weeks ago, U.S. Capitol Police facilitated a meeting with over 20 

law enforcement agencies regarding drones, and the meeting focused on four key areas: the general issues and concerns with these 

types of UAVs, the current laws that each agency follows and 

would use to prosecute such types of events—and we actually had 

people from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, local prosecutors at the 

meeting as well—the types of tools for responding to these kinds 

of challenges, and lastly, the development of a common and consistent message to the community because that is also important 

in terms of educating our community about these types of vehicles 

and what would be legal and not legal. Of course, we discussed a 

number of other related aspects. 

We do work with all of our law enforcement partners on a daily 

basis in coordination not only regarding UAVs but a variety of 

other airspace issues. We are very plugged into this issue because 

of the fact that we have had an airspace coordinator, and you are 

familiar with some of the capabilities we have in our command center. This unique challenge is something that we need to stay on top 

of consistently and be plugged in at the highest levels with all of 

our partner agencies to make sure that we have the capability and 

adaptability and nimbleness to respond. 

Obviously, as it relates to the specific tactics and approaches, I 

would be glad to meet with you in a private forum to discuss some 

of the capabilities and things that are being looked at more specifically to combat these types of things. We are very plugged into the 

issue and aware of the challenges that they bring. 

PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Senator SCHATZ. Chief Dine, I want to ask you about the unique 

mission that the Capitol Police have to contend with, arguably different than any other police force, which is the foundation of American democracy, access to citizens and staff and the press to the 

Capitol campus. And yet, you have an incredible obligation to protect the members and the staff and the citizens. 

And I understand almost 10 million people last year came 

through the doors, and these are a lot of different doors. Each entry 

point is unique and traffic volume fluctuates, and some are mostly 

visitors. Some are members. Others are staff and advocates. But it 

is an incredible challenge to balance those two things leaning heavily on the safety and the security side, but understanding that you 

still have to move people efficiently and that a lot of times this is 

someone from some other State and their only time in their life to 

really be in the midst of American style democracy in this particular fashion. So I recognize the challenge that the force has and 

that your officers have. 
85 

How do you ensure what policies and procedures and what training do you have in place to make sure that you have alert officers 

at all times throughout their shifts? 

Chief DINE. We do a number of things. We rotate officers through 

their posts. We give them a number of breaks. One of the things 

that we have been doing much more aggressively, as I alluded to 

earlier, was pushing out key pieces of intelligence information. It 

keeps them focused and alert and cognizant of the various types of 

challenges that we face. 

As you mentioned and as I mentioned earlier, we are kind of an 

amalgamation of multiple types of agencies, and we take very seriously and are very proud of the fact that we are protectors literally 

of the democratic process, but we are also ambassadors. Our role 

as America’s police department is such that when people come to 

the United States Capitol from all over the world, we want, when 

they see our officers who are often the first faces that they see 

when they come here and often the last face they see, that they 

have just encountered the best in American policing. That is what 

we want them to believe and feel and see when they see us. 

The alertness of our officers is critical. The various types of 

threats that we face as they are moving people around this very 

open campus, as we know, is quite a challenge, and obviously it is 

imperative that our officers are alert and on watch 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week. We engage in all those types of activities to make 

sure that they are in that mode. 

CELL PHONE POLICY

Senator SCHATZ. What is your policy on cell phones? 

Chief DINE. We have a policy, obviously, that precludes folks 

from not paying full time and attention to their duties while they 

are on their posts. 

Senator SCHATZ. Is it a general prohibition on being distracted, 

or is there a specific reference to use of smart phones and cell 

phones? 

Chief DINE. Both, but we do give phones to our officials and some 

officers have phones, but we want them to refrain from using them 

while on post. As you know, we moved forward last year, thanks 

to your support, with our new radio system which is working splendidly. We want them to utilize a police radio if they need to call 

for relief or call for a supervisor or need to make an emergency 

phone call or deal with some type of thing where they need to go 

offline. Officers have the capability and adaptability to do that 

through our police radio, and then obviously, they can get a break 

and make a phone call. But it is imperative based on the significance of our role that they are paying full time and attention. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I would like to ask a few more questions if the panel will bear 

with me here. 

I would like to talk to the Sergeant at Arms on the IT upgrades. 

You mentioned just briefly—but we did have the outage in January 

where the Senate system—the whole network I think—went down. 

And you mentioned that the $13 million increase for this coming 
86 

year would go a long way to help to prevent something like that 

happening again. Could you speak to what happened and what this 

upgrade would do to prevent something like that happening again? 

Mr. LARKIN. Yes, Chairman. Essentially we had a significant 

switch failure at our primary computing facility that was due for 

an upgrade during the February recess. However, it failed in January. No other explanation other than that. 

Senator CAPITO. Was that upgrade in the budget for last year? 

Mr. LARKIN. It had been considered for upgrade a number of 

years ago, but because of some of the budget pressures, a decision 

was made to push out the refresh, which goes back to Senator 

Schatz’s question about the effects of squeezing our budgetary line. 

The source of the shutdown has been clearly identified. The new 

hardware has been installed and is currently being tested and is 

due for switch-over very shortly. And we expect that as far as this 

type of scenario occurring again, we have mitigated it with a high 

degree of confidence. In the event that we have—again, I do not 

want to say a similar incident, but an incident that challenges our 

systems the way we were challenged in January, we will have a 

seamless switch-over to our alternate computing facility without 

interruption to services. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

I am going to kind of wade into something here. Another topical 

question in front of us today is the use of official or personal email 

accounts to conduct business. I guess I am unclear as to who sets 

the policy here for the Senate and what policy exists. I mean, I 

think this is something that we need to clarify. Is that something 

that falls within your domain at the Sergeant at Arms? 

Mr. LARKIN. Chairman, I will have to get back to you, again, 

with a clear answer on that. Again, obviously, with what has occurred recently in the news, it has drawn attention to this. There 

are policies in place. I would like to get back to you as to the source 

of those policies and how well they are defined. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay, because I am speculating, obviously, that 

if you are going to guarantee the security of the networks of the 

Senate.gov, that does call into question where is the security of 

personal emails. It is not an uncommon practice to have two accounts. So I would like to follow up on this. I think it is a discussion we should have here. 

HEARING SECURITY

And one other thing for you is—and you and I have talked about 

this. There was an occurrence in one of the subcommittee hearings 

right after you took the job, where there was a call to question as 

to the security that was provided to the Senators and the witnesses 

that were testifying because of some protestors in the room. 

I mean, having been in several meetings where this has occurred, 

many times folks who want to verbally protest or wave signs will 

prepare the panel and the Capitol Police and say this is what we 

plan to do. We want to have our protest. And normally you can contain that easily, and then most of them will then exit the room or 

sit quietly for the remainder of the committee hearing. 
87 

But in this case, it sounded like it sort of got out of hand. The 

timeliness of the reaction was questionable. I know Senator 

McCain was very upset by what had happened in his committee. 

So I guess both of you would probably be appropriate to answer 

this, but I would like to give you as Sergeant at Arms, because you 

and I have talked about this, what kind of protocols you are putting into place to try to alleviate that situation. 

Mr. LARKIN. First of all, Chairman, the McCain incident was 

underwhelming and ineffective response, which drew the attention 

to the fact that we have high profile hearings that occur almost 

daily on this campus. It motivated a look at our procedures. It also 

created an opportunity to get together with the new committees 

and ensure that everybody was in sync with the committee processes and how to deal with these scenarios, should they occur. The 

Capitol Police was very much involved in that effort, along with the 

Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary’s Office, again, to ensure that 

everybody was operating on the same playing field and understood 

what the expectations were as far as conducting a committee hearing or, for that matter, conduct that would be inappropriate in a 

member’s office by one of these groups that would show up unannounced to voice their opinion. 

There was significant focus on not obstructing their free speech. 

However, as you alluded to, we accomplished getting with these 

groups in advance of these hearings clearly outlining what was appropriate behavior and what was not appropriate behavior and 

then informing them as to what the consequences would be. 

Personally I directed the Capitol Police department as the Chairman of the Police Board that anyone that is to be removed from 

a hearing room for inappropriate behavior, whether it presented a 

safety issue or a security issue, would be arrested. 

Senator CAPITO. Is that a new policy? 

Mr. LARKIN. That is a policy that had been exercised in the past. 

However, I clarified that policy so that there would be no misinterpretation as to when it would be enforced. And we, again, got together with the committees, informed them of that. 

Since these new processes have been in place, we have not had 

any problems. We have had incidents, but they have been quickly 

brought under control. Folks who have elected to voice their opinion about various subjects have been allowed to do so, but then 

when they have been warned, they either comply or they are removed from the hearing room. 

Senator CAPITO. Chief Dine, did you want to make a comment on 

that? 

Chief DINE. I can echo those remarks from the Sergeant at Arms. 

Our response that day was not acceptable and not up to our high 

standards. It did allow us to work with the Sergeant at Arms and 

his staff and all the committees to highlight further the communication between us, the Sergeant at Arms staff, and the committees so we know ahead of time the expectations of all parties. 

We generally do an outstanding job at liaisoning with these 

groups. Almost on a daily basis we protect the First Amendment 

and the people’s right to be heard up here. As an agency we take 

that very, very seriously and, frankly, are very proud of the manner in which we do that. That being said, the work of the Congress 
88 

must go on uninterrupted, and when we need to take action, we 

need to do that. 

It allowed us to formulate some better training, working with our 

General Counsel’s office who provides us outstanding assistance. 

We actually are providing scenario-based training so our officers 

and officials are extremely confident when they are in these types 

of situations in terms of what actions to take and what different 

laws apply. As Mr. Larkin said, they do that on a daily basis very 

well generally. It allowed us to strengthen the communication, the 

training, and the clarity about which we want the officers to act. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, thank you. 

USCP OVERTIME

I am going to ask another budgetary question here. I understand 

that striking the best balance between the cost of on-board officers 

and the cost of overtime has been a persistent struggle for the Capitol Police. The projected overtime costs for fiscal year 2016 are 

$30.9 million, and the budget request maintains, as we have said, 

the current officer strength at 1,775. 

So I am curious to know from the leadership’s perspective, both 

Chief Dine and Sergeant at Arms as chairman of the Capitol Police 

Board, where things stand today. Is this the best we can do? Is it 

possible to drive down overtime costs, or does maintaining the 

1,775 officers mean that we will always have a $30 million cost of 

overtime? Chief Dine? 

Chief DINE. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. I think there are a couple 

key points that relate to this question. 

The first one being the mission requirements of the department 

significantly exceed the staffing levels we have. There will always 

be the necessity of overtime. 

Senator CAPITO. Could I ask just a quick question here? Because 

you and I talked about this. Your staffing level is at 1,775. You are 

authorized for more officers. Correct? Or is that your statutory 

limit? 

Chief DINE. We are authorized 1,800 sworn positions. 

Senator CAPITO. 1,800? 

Chief DINE. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. Continue. Sorry. 

Chief DINE. What is asked of the agency has historically exceeded our ability to do that without overtime. Our requirements just 

exceed the staffing levels we have. There always will be some use 

of overtime in certain situations like this, and often it is more practical than having excess capacity. It frankly makes us more nimble 

in a lot of ways. However, there are additional fiscal year 2016 

overtime costs related to the conventions. 

The other key point that I mentioned earlier was part of our 

overtime cost relates to training needs because we have to backfill 

people when we take them off line for training, which is a little bit 

different than most other departments would operate. 

We obviously work continually with the Capitol Police Board to 

determine that balance, to try to strike that correct balance between overtime and what we request in a given fiscal year. If we 

were to ask for more officers ever in the future, it would still not 

offset overtime for that year because of the time it takes to get offi-
89 

cers on board. I mean, that is sort of a hypothetical answer. It 

takes about a year to get full utility from officers even when we 

hire them. I have obviously directed our COO and CAO to continually monitor overtime costs and strike that best balance between 

where we are fiscally with the use of overtime and the number of 

people we have on board. 

Right now, we are not at 1,775 either. We are always striving to 

get to that number. 

Senator CAPITO. Where are you right now? 

Chief DINE. Probably around 1,730 or—— 

Senator CAPITO. Is that built into your budget that you are 50 

under? 

Chief DINE. Yes, ma’am. The budget is built to get to 1,775. 

So it is a constant, I guess, striking that best balance between 

staffing and overtime. And as I mentioned, the overtime amount 

for what we are requesting is almost $2 million for the conventions 

and training is about $1.5 million. 

Senator CAPITO. Sergeant at Arms, do you have a comment on 

your overview? And I am curious to know, do you have overtime 

in your department? Do you pay overtime on your budget? 

Mr. LARKIN. There is some overtime components, but it is for 

particular employees that are working in like our parking areas 

and some of the other, what I would say, ground support activities. 

Senator CAPITO. So what comment would you make in terms of the $30 million overtime at the Capitol Police? 

Mr. LARKIN. Well, first of all, as chairman of the Police Board, 

it is incumbent upon me and the House Sergeant at Arms and the 

Architect who make up the Police Board to provide effective oversight on this overtime issue. Fortunately, my deputy with his extensive appropriations background has been invaluable in the examination of the police budget and the overtime factor. 

I think this is going to be an ongoing challenge as we try to adjust the force to the threat conditions that challenge the Capitol 

and also for the no-notice or those activities that are not planned 

for or budgeted for in advance. 

I will say, Chairman, that one of the things that continues to 

haunt the force and our staffing is the discussion about opening up 

doors. That does not come without a cost in human resources and 

a financial cost, let alone a security challenge that it presents to 

our armor, so to speak. 

Senator CAPITO. One of my colleagues just hit me the other day. 

They ought to reopen that door, the one down at the—— 

Mr. LARKIN. Well, I can understand. You know, security is a balance between what is effective against a threat, you know, applying 

some common sense and reality as to how we can effectively defend 

against a threat. And I am not talking about goal line defense. I 

am talking about getting out ahead of the threat, getting to it early 

so that we mitigate, minimize any destruction. But you got that dynamic tension between that and inconvenience. And there is also 

a factor of perception. In other words, does your perception of security and a secure environment match the functional security 

against that threat? And obviously, if you are close to an incident 

such as 9/11, then you have a high expectation for security. You 

kind of trade off a lot of the inconvenience that comes with secu-
90 

rity. The more you move away from that date, then you see that 

pressure. But you have to accept that you also potentially are putting yourselves more into a vulnerable position. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. Thank you. 

Senator. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, I think I have no further questions. And 

this concludes the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee 

hearing regarding fiscal year 2016. I want to thank the Secretary 

of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief of the Capitol 

Police. Thank you each for your testimony and your frankness in 

your answering questions. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

The hearing record will remain open for 7 days, allowing members to submit statements and/or questions for the record which 

should be sent to the subcommittee by close of business on Thursday, March 19th, 2015. 

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

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

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. FRANK J. LARKIN

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

Question. Does the SAA currently utilize, or plan to implement, a cloud computing 

based information technology infrastructure to operate and deliver programs to the 

public? 

Answer. The SAA is not currently utilizing a specific cloud computing based IT 

infrastructure, however, the Senate is already utilizing multiple separate cloud services primarily focused on public access to information. We are taking advantage of 

cloud services where they make the most sense for our environment, including: 

Committee Video Streaming; Senate.Gov Website Serving; Web development tools/ 

code repository, Application Platform as a Service, Document repository, Document 

Sharing; Office File Storage, Synchronization, & Collaboration; Social Media; Senate 

Floor Video Streaming; Live Video Streaming; Video Streaming; Social Media 

Archiving; Geographic Information Services. 

Cloud Computing is a very general term that encompasses a large number of service types that are frequently very complex. The SAA is continually researching and 

evaluating these services and taking advantage of them whenever the benefits to 

the Senate and/or the public are clear and measureable. The SAA fully expects to 

be utilizing more and more cloud services as we move forward. 

Question. Are there particular IT applications like e-mail, disaster recovery, analytics, or other programs that SAA would consider moving to cloud computing? 

Answer. The SAA has an ongoing Cloud Computing Research and Evaluation initiative with the goal of making recommendations regarding cloud computing strategies for the Senate. The scope of this initiative includes currently available public 

and private cloud services and will evaluate all IT services provided by the SAA 

with respect to them. Nothing is off the table from an IT perspective, however, there 

are many other considerations such as data custody, data security, cost, reliability, 

and performance, just to name a few. 

Question. With today’s mobile workforce, how does SAA provide availability, while 

ensuring data governance and security? 

Answer. The SAA provides Mobile Device Management technologies and on-campus wireless network access to offices, which we use to apply fundamental security 

controls. Additional security controls are under the purview of the office system administrator. Although the SAA does not have authority to control or view the data 

transmitted, stored, or processed on these devices, we nonetheless offer training and 

guidance to offices on how they can best secure their information. 

Question. What are SAA’s plans to leverage technologies like data or video analytics, to provide more proactive security measures on Capitol Hill? 

Answer. The SAA works with the U.S. Capitol Police and our Federal law enforcement partners to research and examine various forms of new technology that show 
91 

potential for use as security multipliers on Capitol Hill and the member State offices. These forms include data or video analytics as well as other technical security 

methods. The SAA will continue to consider new technology, their associated deployment capabilities and costs, as they relate to mitigating current/relevant threats and 

risks. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. KIM C. DINE

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

EXPENSES ACCOUNT

Question. The requested increase includes $1.4 million for Government support 

services from the National Finance Center and the creation of an in-house capability 

for applicant testing and background investigations. It appears as though you are 

proposing to contract out for something that could be handled within the Department’s Office of Human Resources, while at the same time you are proposing to create an in-house capability that would make more sense to contract out. Please explain why the Capitol Police needs to purchase support services from the National 

Finance Center and create an in-house capability for background investigations. 

Answer. The $1.4 million budget request is intended to upgrade current HR processing functions with the National Finance Center (NFC) and the expansion of an 

in-house capability to conduct employee background investigations that were previously conducted by contractors. 

When the sequester took effect, the Department discontinued using an automated 

staffing tool with a performance management component that was very costly. The 

Department currently uses mainframe technology which is antiquated and inefficient to process personnel actions with NFC, which is our payroll system of record. 

This request will fund a one-time cost to upgrade to a new platform with the National Finance Center using technology that automates personnel action processing, 

managers self-service, position management and offers an add-on component called 

ePerformance. ePerformance is a self-service performance evaluation application for 

managers, employees and human resources administrators. This new platform also 

offers capability to interface with USAStaffing which is the Department’s cost saving automated staffing tool that supports paperless onboarding to provide end to 

end processing throughout an employee’s career lifecycle. 

Regarding the expansion of the Department’s background investigation capability, 

recent current events had generated significant concerns surrounding the accountability and security of PII information and the rising costs of cases being investigated through contracted support. Due to such risk, we already are performing 

more in-house, and this funding will allow us to fully fund and stabilize that effort. 

Bringing the investigations in-house has minimized the risk of security breaches on 

Capitol Hill and has allowed for a more thorough investigation into each candidate 

to include subject interviews, and to interview key individuals in an applicant’s 

sphere of contacts to insure the agency hires the right people who possess the qualities, values and character outlined in the Capitol Police Board’s hiring standards. 

The Department will no longer rely completely on external support to conduct field 

investigations but will instead perform more of the investigative work and provide 

controlled oversight of personnel security. This initiative includes merger of the 

Badging and Credentials and Background Investigations Sections to ensure the integrity of PII, quality, timeliness and eventual cost effectiveness of investigations 

through internal continuity. This effort also improves the alignment of business 

processes and expertise with well-defined roles and responsibilities to perform this 

critical work for the Department. The proposed expansion is designed to eliminate 

vulnerabilities and instill confidence in our stakeholders. 

Question. There are a multitude of requested increases throughout the general expenses budget that pertain to training. Will this funding level be a new baseline 

for training needs in future fiscal years? 

Answer. This is another area that has suffered due to the budgetary constraints 

of the last several years. Our increase for training is to restore us to training levels 

throughout the Department that existed about 5 years ago. 

There is training that occurs every year. The training of our new recruits is our 

most significant training effort and our request each year is based on the number 

of recruits we project to hire. This request is based on ensuring that we maintain 

our current funded staffing levels of 1,775 sworn officers. However, the on-going 

training of our sworn officers is the next most significant training effort. Training 

for our civilian personnel is also critical. This involves non-personnel costs and per-
92 

sonnel costs, as we need to relieve the officers from their ongoing duties to take the 

training and that backfill costs results in projected overtime for the Department. 

The non-personnel costs involved in officer training is fairly static each year. 

Many of the increases in our request this year is for individual training for officers, officials and civilians, which is reflected in various places in our budget as it 

affects nearly every bureau and office, not just a targeted group within the Department. In tight fiscal situations this is the training that must be deferred first, as 

the previous two trainings have the highest priority. But we are asking to restore 

training for only the highest needs of the Department and are incurring the biggest 

increases in our most technological entities. The technical training, particular in security services, IT and cyber, are areas we want to keep as up to date as possible. 

We do see these increases as baseline increases and do not foresee significant increases after this. 

Question. The request includes $2.7 million for travel, rental of telecommunications equipment, and other purchases associated with the Republican and Democratic Presidential Conventions scheduled for the summer of 2016. Is this funding 

request based on actual expenditures from the Presidential Conventions in 2012? 

Knowing that those conventions are well covered by the Secret Service, the FBI and 

other law enforcement agencies, would it be possible for the Capitol Police to scale 

back its presence if the full amount of funding requested was not available? 

Answer. The funding request is based on actual expenditures with normal cost increases. There is no new functionality we plan to implement that was not performed 

at prior conventions. The United States Capitol Police has the primary responsibility for the protection of Members of Congress, Officers of Congress and immediate 

family members of Members and Officers throughout the entire United States, DC, 

Territories and Possessions. This, coupled with the scope of members attending this 

event and criticality of ensuring both the Continuation of Government and Continuation of Legislative Operations, makes the Democratic and Republican Conventions 

a unique challenge for the United States Capitol Police. 

At all events, but particularly events of this magnitude, the United States Capitol 

Police works collaboratively with all of our partner agencies in a broad array of general law enforcement functions to include, but not limited to, intelligence gathering, 

dignitary protection, law enforcement actions, and other broad measures of prevention and response capabilities. However, the Capitol Police focuses our resources to 

ensure that the Congressional Leadership and other members of Congress are safe 

and can participate in the convention process without fear of harm. This includes, 

amongst other functions: 

—Securing hotels and spaces for their use in much the same manner as we secure 

buildings and spaces on the U.S. Capitol Grounds. This is often daunting as 

often multiple hotels are used in the Convention Cities for members; 

—Participating in a multi-agency response team to ensure our law enforcement 

experts are available for action and analysis; 

—Analyzing intelligence information for a variety of sources to anticipate and 

mitigate negative consequence events before they occur; and most critical, 

—Implementing emergency action plans to include shelter-in-place, internal relocation and full evacuation plans to ensure the safety of members, the continuation of Government and the continuity of legislative operations. 

The U.S. Capitol Police, at the direction of the Capitol Police Board and the authority of U.S. Code focuses on the congressional contingent and their safety. Our 

resources, which are technical, mechanical and human, are concentrated to the mission of the Agency. As such, it is not recommended that our funding is reduced. 

However, the U.S Capitol Police will work with our partner agencies, and under the 

direction of the Capitol Police Board will strive to reduce operational expenses at 

every opportunity. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ

Question. What is the USCP policy regarding the use of personal cell phones, personal smart phones, or other personal electronic devices while on duty? 

Answer. The Department policy is that while personal cell phones may be carried 

on their person; officers can only use them in case of emergency. The Department 

does not tolerate neglect of duty by officers failing to pay full time and attention 

to their duties. 

The actual policy on attention to duty reads as follows: 

Directive 2053.013, Rules of Conduct: Rule B10 

Rule B10: Neglect of Duty 
93 

Employees will devote their full time and attention to the performance of their 

duties at all times while on duty. 

The applicable policy on carrying a cell phone on their person is found in Directive 

1701.001, Uniforms and Equipment, Operational Directive UNF 1.1, Uniforms, 

Equipment and Personal Grooming: 

Personal Pagers/Phones/Communication Devices 

1. When worn, personal pagers must be black or dark in color to blend in with 

the web gear. 

2. Personal cellular type phones that serve as pagers must be permitted to the 

extent that they are used as pagers. These phones must be black or dark in 

color to blend with the web gear. 

3. Employees are permitted to carry personal cellular phones, that are black or 

another color but fully encased in a black cover. Employees must not use personal cellular phones while on duty, except in an emergency. 

Question. What is the discipline process and penalty for violations of this policy? 

Answer. The disciplinary process for rank and file officers is found in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) agreed to by the Department and the Fraternal 

Order of Police Labor Committee. Penalties for these types of violations can range 

from a written warning to termination based on a series of factors required to be 

considered in the CBA when determining disciplinary penalties. 

A typical process for a violation of this type is that once an employee is observed 

or otherwise found to be Neglecting Duty, which is defined as failing to devote full 

time and attention to duty, then discipline is initiated in one of two ways depending 

upon a number of factors. 

1. Command Discipline Report is initiated. 

Command Discipline is lower level discipline that is initiated at the Divisionlevel that can result in a written warning up to 3 days of forfeiture of accrued 

annual leave. A document is placed in the personnel file for up to 18 months 

and this can serve as the basis of future progressive discipline. The Chief of 

Police or Designee is the final adjudicator for this level of discipline. 

2. Department-Level Discipline which results in a ‘‘Request for Disciplinary Action’’ which is a more serious type of disciplinary action can occur, typically as 

part of progressive discipline. The result can range from 1 day suspension (at 

a higher level) through termination. Disciplinary actions stemming from this 

more severe type of disciplinary action can be contested to the Assistant Chief 

of designee, or possibly contested to a Disciplinary Review Board, depending 

on the level of the recommended penalty. Ultimately, the Chief of Police is the 

final adjudicator of this type of discipline. 

Officers who have a disciplinary history can receive a much higher penalty for a 

repeated violation or continued various violations, based on their record. 

So based on this question, it would be appropriate to advise that for a Commander to determine the most appropriate level of discipline and assign an appropriate penalty recommendation for an officer who improperly uses a cell phone on 

duty, a Department manager may issue a penalty that can vary based on the required factors for consideration found in the CBA: (1) nature and seriousness of the 

violation, (2) the employee’s record, (3) comparative penalties (within the last 2 

years) and (4) any mitigating factors. 

Suffice it to say, there is an established process for accountability. Disciplinary 

actions are based on well-founded observations or evidence stemming from field observation or reports of investigation. These matters are reviewed at several managerial levels of management. Employees are fully aware of the charges made against 

them and they are permitted to be represented by their Union Stewards. There is 

due process in every case and employees are fully able to appeal or grieve disciplinary actions. 

The Department’s disciplinary process employs the theory of progressive discipline, but there is nothing that stops the Department from assigning a penalty 

that the adjudicator believes to be appropriate in any instance in order to hold employees accountable for their actions. Responsibility for initiating disciplinary actions stems from field commanders who observe violations or from complaints made 

to the Office of Professional Responsibility. The Chief of Police is ultimately responsible for the overall discipline system. 

The Department’s management approach to controlling use of personal cell phones 

has been to regularly emphasize the need for mission-focus to our employees and 

to provide unclassified intelligence bulletins and briefs on current threats, to employ 

field supervisor enforcement, and initiate disciplinary actions when appropriate. The 

importance of attentiveness to duty makes it of paramount importance for super-
94 

visors to instill an anti-complacency message in our workforce and this frequently 

a topic discussed at roll calls. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

The next hearing of this subcommittee will be held on Tuesday 

at 3 p.m. in Dirksen 138. At that time, we will hear testimony from 

the Library of Congress and the Architect of the Capitol regarding 

fiscal year 2016 budget requests. 

Until then, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., Thursday, March 12, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 
(95) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015 

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

The subcommittee met at 3:05 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Capito, Schatz, and Murphy. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DAVID MAO, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

ROBERT NEWLEN, CHIEF OF STAFF 

MARY KLUTTS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

MARK SWEENEY, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES 

ELIZABETH SCHEFFLER, INTERIM CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 

AND ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES 

DR. MARY MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 

SERVICE 

MARIA PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 

LUCY SUDDRETH, DIRECTOR OF SUPPORT OPERATIONS 

KAREN KENINGER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR 

THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

Senator CAPITO. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to 

order, and I would like to welcome everyone to the third of our fiscal year 2016 budget hearings for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The ranking member, Senator Schatz, is in the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) Appropriations hearing at the minute. He’s 

in a holding pattern of 7 minutes before he gets to question, and 

I asked if he didn’t mind—he actually encouraged me to go ahead 

and go forward with the testimony. 

So with that in mind, I just would like to welcome everybody. 

Today we will have two panels of witnesses. The first panel will be 

Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, accompanied by 

the Deputy Librarian, Mr. David Mao, and the Chief of Staff of the 

Library, Mr. Robert Newlen. 

At the completion of Dr. Billington’s testimony and the subsequent question-and-answer session with the Library, we will then 
96 

turn to the Architect of the Capitol, the Honorable Stephen Ayers, 

for our second panel. 

I would like to begin by welcoming Dr. Billington, who this past 

September marked his 27th year as the Librarian of Congress, 

quite an achievement. That’s a wonderful accomplishment, and we 

thank you for your dedication to the Library and for your many 

years of public service. 

I would also like to welcome the newest members of Dr. 

Billington’s team, your leadership team, who together with the 

combined 75 years of service to the Library of Congress bring a 

wealth of knowledge to these new leadership positions: Mr. David 

Mao, the Deputy Librarian of Congress; Mr. Robert Newlen, the 

Chief of Staff; and Mary Klutts, the Chief Financial Officer. We 

congratulate you on these new responsibilities and wish you all the 

best in helping to lead the Library through the next chapter of its 

life. 

I understand that there are several other members of the senior 

leadership team here today. I did get a chance to meet them all, 

so I appreciate all of you coming and I want to extend to you the 

subcommittee’s appreciation for all the tremendous work that you 

do in supporting the Congress in keeping the Nation informed and 

maintaining the history of our Nation, as well as others around the 

world. 

So again, thank you all for being here with us today for this important discussion on how the Library is planning to move forward 

in the coming fiscal year. 

I note that the Library’s total fiscal year 2016 budget request is 

$624.5 million, or a $33.5 million or 6 percent increase above the 

fiscal year 2015 enacted level. Given the continued budget constraints within which we must operate, it will be important to hear 

from you what the most critical priorities are for the Library because we may not be able to fund all of the requested increases. 

So now I would like to turn to my ranking member, but he’s not 

here, so I’ll turn to him in a few minutes. 

I would like to ask Dr. Billington to give a brief opening statement of approximately 5 minutes. The written testimony you submitted to the subcommittee will be printed in full in the hearing 

record. 

Dr. Billington. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. Thank you for the honor and pleasure of providing testimony in support of the fiscal year 2016 budget request 

of the Library of Congress. We’re grateful for the support that this 

subcommittee has given to the Library, and we look forward to 

working with you as public servants, living in a time of both continuing budget constraints and an ongoing revolution in how 

knowledge is generated and communicated and used. 

You have already mentioned several of the new management colleagues appearing for the first time before the subcommittee. I 

would just mention in addition to the three you mentioned are 

Mark Sweeney, Associate Librarian for Library Services; Elizabeth 

Scheffler, Interim Chief Information Officer and Associate Librar-
97 

ian for Strategic Initiatives; Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director of the 

Congressional Research Service; Maria Pallante, the Register of 

Copyrights; and Lucy Suddreth, Director of Support Operations; 

and as well another member of the Library’s management team, 

Karen Keninger, Director of the National Library Service for the 

Blind and Physically Handicapped. 

The Library of Congress fiscal year 2016 budget request is for approximately $660 million and represents a 5.7 percent increase 

over the Library’s fiscal year 2015 funding level. Nearly two-thirds 

of this requested increase, $21.9 million, is needed to cover mandatory pay increases and unavoidable price level increases anticipated for fiscal year 2016. The remainder, $13.9 million, makes key 

investments in infrastructure of our aging physical plant and information technology and addresses gaps in critical areas of expertise 

that we’ve lost to attrition, a particularly acute need in the Congressional Research Service (CRS). 

In recent years, the Library has operated with progressively 

fewer resources. The total Library appropriation has decreased by 

more than $53 million—almost 8 percent—since fiscal year 2010. 

We’re doing much more with many fewer employees. Since 1992, 

the Library has added its massive digital programs to its still growing traditional analog collections and services despite losing 1,429 

full-time equivalents (FTEs). Our fiscal year 2016 budget request 

will further reduce the number of authorized FTEs across the Library by 405, or 11 percent, because we simply cannot support 

them with current funding. 

We are deeply concerned also about moving into fiscal year 2016 

with the prospect of another sequestration, which would require 

making additional cuts to our programs and would prevent us from 

making necessary investments in infrastructure and in staff with 

critically needed skills and expertise. 

The Library continues to serve the Congress and the American 

people in ways that no other institution anywhere can match. The 

Congressional Research Service is the research arm of the legislative and oversight work of the Congress, and we also serve Congress through the Nation’s largest law library. As the de facto national library of the United States, the Library now acquires, preserves, and makes accessible free of charge the largest, most wideranging collection of humanity’s recorded knowledge ever assembled anywhere in the world by any one institution. 

The U.S. Copyright Office encourages, protects, and preserves 

the work of America’s innovative curators. The Copyright and Library Services staff work hand in hand to ensure that the copyright of intellectual culture of the American people is preserved, 

continuing to fulfill the original mandate of copyright when it was 

brought into the Library in 1870. 

The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped provides the only free public library reading service for 

these Americans, wherever they live. 

We are taking steps to maximize efficiency, minimize the cost of 

the Library’s services, and placing a much greater emphasis on 

shared services both within the Library and across the entire Legislative Branch, such as the Legislative Branch Financial Management System, which is hosted by the Library. We recognize that 
98 

there is much congressional discussion at the moment about the 

important work of updating copyright law for the 21st century, and 

as the Act is updated, Congress’ Library needs to be sure that the 

concept of building, preserving and protecting this key part of the 

national memory for the benefit of the American people is not lost. 

There are two unique characteristics of the Library of Congress 

that make it an increasingly valuable resource for sustaining 

American leadership in the information age. First, both our security and economic competitiveness globally are increasingly dependent on the acquisition and the use of the world’s knowledge, for 

which the Library is the entire world’s preeminent resource. Secondly, America’s special capacity for creative innovation is sustained and advanced by America’s only comprehensive storehouse 

of our citizens’ copyrighted intellectual and cultural creativity. 

Madam Chairman, the Library of Congress is the world’s largest 

reservoir of knowledge. The Library embodies and advances the 

distinctive American ideal of a knowledge-based democracy. We 

will be grateful for your consideration of our fiscal year 2016 funding request. 

To the subcommittee, Madam Chairman, all of you, I wish to 

thank you all again for your support of the Library. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee: 

Madame Chairman, thank you for the honor and pleasure of providing testimony 

in support of the mission and fiscal 2016 budget request of the Library of Congress. 

The Congress of the United States created in 1800, and has generously supported 

ever since, this amazing one-of-a-kind institution. We who work with and for you 

at the Library of Congress are deeply grateful for the annual appropriation you entrust to us. We are in continuing awe of the enduring mission you have shaped for 

us through a series of historic mandates. We are, at the same time, public servants 

living in a time of both continuing budget constraints and an ongoing revolution in 

how knowledge is generated, communicated, and used. 

I come before you today in the midst of an extraordinary year of unprecedented, 

purely internal, library-wide self-examination from the bottom up and top down. 

This collaborative process is preparing us to produce by the end of fiscal 2015 an 

altogether new strategic plan for fiscal years 2016–2020. It will be designed both 

to maximize efficiency and minimize cost. We will build on the Library’s already 

proven strengths and make the Nation’s oldest Federal cultural institution one of 

its most innovative. 

Congress’s library now acquires, preserves, and makes accessible free-of-charge 

the largest and most wide-ranging collection of humanity’s recorded knowledge ever 

assembled anywhere in the world by any one institution. We also house an unparalleled collection of the multi-media cultural and intellectual creativity of the American people. 

For fiscal 2016, we are asking for $666.629 million, a 5.7 percent increase over 

our 2015 budget. Because of the unique skills of so many of the Library’s staff, we 

have kept to a minimum cuts in our pay budget. But irregular funding for mandatory pay raises and price increases, attrition in our aging workforce, and limitations 

on new hirings have already weakened key areas of our expertise, and they can no 

longer be replaced by redeployments from base funding. Therefore, the Library’s 

budget request for fiscal 2016 is needed to cover a few critical resource additions 

($13.9 million), but mostly just mandatory pay and price level increases ($21.9 million). 

The unique services performed by the Library’s dedicated and multi-talented staff 

include: 

1. Our highest priority of providing all congressional members and committees 

with authoritative, timely, and non-partisan research and analysis to support 

the legislative and oversight work of both houses of Congress, through the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the world’s largest Law Library (LAW). 
99 

2. Encouraging, protecting, and preserving the work of America’s innovative creators through the U.S. Copyright Office (COP), which registers these works, 

records copyright documents, and administers the Nation’s copyright law. 

3. Providing the only free public library reading service for blind and physically 

handicapped Americans wherever they live, thanks to the Library’s National 

Service (NLS) and its home delivery of braille and talking books through local 

libraries. 

4. As the de facto national library of the United States, providing multiple and 

unique services that almost invariably could not be done as well or better by 

any other existing institution. Library Services (LS) supports the entire library 

system of America through our cataloging standards and services and our 

multi-formatted preservation research and practices. And for 20 years the Library has been providing massive, curated, primary documents of American 

history and culture online for the education and inspiration of K–12 teachers 

and students and for life-long learners of all ages. 

Congress’s Library is in many ways America’s strategic information reserve: a 

unique multi-media resource of growing importance for America in the turbulent information age. At the beginning of the current fiscal year on October 1, 2014, the 

Library contained more than 160 million analog items in virtually all languages and 

formats and 5 petabytes of stored digital content. The Library also continues to receive, index, and store copies of half a billion Twitter messages a day. 

We have put in place an entirely new and collaborative top management team to 

bring our traditional analog and digital services closer together. We now have an 

outstanding new Deputy Librarian of Congress, Chief of Staff, and Associate Librarian for Library Services. All three have already successfully exercised multiple responsibilities within the Library of Congress and in the broader library community. 

We have also made four additional new appointments to assure the highest quality for future core Library services: a former Dean and President at two leading universities as the director of all of the Library’s Scholarly Programs; two widely experienced technologists as the Interim Chief and Acting Deputy Chief Information Officers of the Library; and a deeply experienced new permanent head of the Library’s 

financial services division, which also does work for other legislative branch services. 

This new leadership—as well as our year-long, staff-level Futures Program—has 

been added from within the Library without any additional expenses. We are doing 

much more work with far fewer employees. Since 1992, the Library has added its 

massive digital programs to its still growing traditional analog collections and services despite losing 1,429 FTE’s, about 30 percent of our workforce. 

Last year, the Library provided reference services to more than 467,000 individual 

researchers, recorded more than 78 million visits to our Web sites, and provided 

more than 23 million copies of braille and recorded books and magazines to more 

than 890,000 blind and physically handicapped reader accounts. 

In recent years, the Library has operated with progressively fewer resources. The 

total Federal appropriation has decreased in excess of 7.8 percent: from $684.3 million in fiscal 2010 to $630.9 million in fiscal 2015. 

Our fiscal 2016 budget request will further reduce the number of authorized FTE 

positions across the Library by 405—11 percent—because we cannot support them 

with current funding. We have cut critical infrastructure, deferred important investments, consolidated broad program areas, and strengthened governance processes. 

We will need in the near future more flexibility in hiring an expert staff—not just 

for this Library, but for our country. The erosion of basic funding is already compromising our ability to deliver high-quality knowledge resources to the Congress and 

the American people. And we must make key new investments in the critical infrastructure of our aging physical plant and information technology. 

The following are some of the most pressing challenges that the Library faces if 

it is to avoid unintentionally slipping into a decline that might be easy to overlook 

but impossible to reverse. 

The Library’s Congressional Research Service provides objective, nonpartisan information and analysis solely in support of the Congress. Last year, in the 100th 

year of its founding, CRS served 100 percent of Congressional Members and standing committees through tailored briefings, varied programs, and confidential memoranda. The Service supported Congress with a full range of written analyses and 

personal consultations for which the Director’s testimony provides a detailed chronicle. CRS must often move quickly to marshal resources from a variety of disciplines 

across and beyond the Service to provide members and committees with legal and 

policy options to confront complex and fast-moving national and international problems. 
100 

CRS has lost senior expertise in areas that cannot easily be back-filled: trade, defense, natural resources, social policy, and public finance—and continues to need dynamically to reshape its workforce, to continue to provide the authoritative and objective research and analytical support that have been the Service’s hallmark for the 

last 100 years. 

Storage Space: Delays in executing the Ft. Meade master plan have left the Library’s existing facilities functionally beyond capacity. Nearly a million books are 

currently stored on the floor or on book trucks in the Jefferson and Adams buildings, with more than 250,000 new volumes arriving every year. Continuous growth 

of the collections without a commensurate increase in acceptable storage space has 

led to a crisis of significant proportion, posing threats to the safety and well-being 

of Library staff; the preservation and security of collections; the ability to serve the 

Congress, researchers, and the Nation through free interlibrary loans; and preserving the structural integrity of the book stack areas of the Jefferson and Adams 

Buildings. We urgently seek $4.8 million to expand collections storage capacity 

through the installation of compact shelving and lease of interim collections storage 

space until planned Ft. Meade modules are available. We are grateful for fiscal 2014 

funding for the construction of Ft. Meade Module 5; however, even when Module 

5 is fully built and available in fiscal 2018, we will still be unable adequately to 

meet our storage needs and unable to mitigate the issues of overcrowding and safety 

violations. In the long run, completion of the storage modules at Ft. Meade will be 

vastly more cost effective. 

The Law Library is a small enterprise with a critical mission. The Law Library 

currently is unable to address fundamental collection needs after multiple years of 

unfunded pay increases and direct budget cuts. Additional funding is essential to 

ensure that the Law collections are cataloged in compliance with accessibility and 

classification standards widely accepted by all researchers. As of September 30, 

2014, approximately 408,000 volumes remained unclassified. 

Skill Gaps: Over the last 5 years, the Library has developed significant skill gaps 

that have opened up serious holes in word-class expertise, many of which are caused 

by the Library’s inability to back-fill. Holding positions vacant is one of the few 

means available to accommodate mandatory pay raises in the absence of new funding. Identifying and filling skill gaps was one of the strongest recommendations of 

the staff in the Library’s Futures Program. 

Library Services, the largest unit of the Library, recently lost the language and 

subject matter expertise and technical skills of its sole South Asian expert, seriously 

reducing the servicing of collections and reference questions about India. We also 

lost our Turkic language expert, radically diminishing our acquisitions and reference service for material from the many different Turkic-language-speaking countries. The Manuscript Division now lacks high-level subject matter expertise in 

legal, military, science, and technology areas. And many Library Services divisions, 

as well as the Law Library, need more skilled technologists to work with our growing digital content. 

The U.S. Copyright Office: A Scholar in Residence recently delivered to the Register a comprehensive report with recommendations for transforming the operation 

of publicly recording copyright-related documents, including copyright assignments 

and licenses. It was the first substantive analysis of document recordation in several 

decades and will assist the Register in planning activities necessary to bringing recordation online in fiscal 2015 and 2016. The Copyright Office also recently published 

a major policy study on the current music licensing system, Copyright and the Music 

Marketplace, which one leading industry publication called a ‘‘rare instance of government getting out in front of moving technology.’’ The many challenges of copyright in the digital age are discussed in detail in the separate report of the Register 

of Copyrights to the committee. 

The Library recognizes there is much congressional discussion at the moment 

about updating the copyright law for the 21st century. This work could not be more 

important when the economic, social, and intellectual value of copyrighted works is 

so significant to America and the world. As the Act is updated, the Library wants 

to be sure that the concept of building, preserving, and protecting a ‘‘national collection’’ for the benefit of the American people is not lost. 

Fifty or 100 years from now, members and constituents will turn to the national 

collection to read, learn from, and build upon the creative output of American authors, composers, filmmakers, artists, and others—just as citizens today are reaping 

the value of creative works that were added to the collections in 1965 and in 1915. 

Copyright deposit built much of the national collection. Congress has made the 

Library the sole repository of copyrighted works. New works must continue to be 

added to the national collection at the Library—especially in the Internet age, when 

the nature of information itself undergoes so many changes. This is a commitment 
101 

that the Congress, the patron of the national collection, and the Library, its steward, have made to current and future generations of Americans. 

Despite our many challenges, this is a time of great promise for the Library. Digital technology is transforming in all areas of our work to deliver services to the 

Congress and its constituents. We are asking for $2 million to fund the Digital Collections Center, to provide 

proper stewardship of the Library’s rapidly growing digital content. Over the last 

5 years, the Library’s traditional analog collections have averaged 3.6 million added 

pieces per year. During this same period, archived Web content has grown exponentially from roughly 125 to 582 terabytes, an annual average increase of more than 

73 percent. The development of a dedicated Digital Collections Center, with the capacity to manage and sustain all this digital content, is an essential investment to 

fulfill the Library’s collections stewardship mission now and into the foreseeable future. 

The Library’s strategic management of its information technology assets and operations is a significant issue addressed in the report language of this subcommittee 

last year and in recent findings of the GAO. Management of recommendations in 

strategic planning, enterprise architecture, human capital management, investment 

management, system acquisition and development, security, and service management are all challenges that our Interim Chief Information Officer and her Deputy 

are now moving aggressively to address; and the Library is conducting a national 

search for a permanent Chief Information Officer, whom we expect to have in place 

by the end of this year. 

Last year I spoke of the Futures Program that will inform the next strategic plan. 

Library staff from many different programs and levels below the Executive Committee suggested new 21st century approaches to fulfilling the Library’s historic 

service missions. The Futures Program’s recommendations have generally built on 

the Library’s unique strengths and required minimal new resources. They reaffirmed the historical integrity and objectivity of all Library of Congress services— 

keeping the Library free from any commercial or political advocacy agendas and 

demonstrating the Library’s importance for sustaining American leadership in an 

increasingly knowledge-dependent world, while launching new initiatives. 

The Library is also meeting the challenges of minimizing duplication in performing its services—placing a much greater emphasis on shared services both 

across the legislative branch and within the Library. Currently, the Legislative 

Branch Financial Management System (LBFMS) resides at the Library, which holds 

the financial system not only for the Library but also for four other legislative 

branch agencies. In fiscal 2016, the Architect of the Capitol will become the fifth 

cross-serviced agency. 

The Library collaborated with the House and Senate and other legislative branch 

agencies to more effectively exchange and present legislative information by adding 

new online features and data to Congress.gov and by contributing to the Speaker’s 

Bulk Data Task Force. Internally, the Library is moving forward with a range of 

shared service initiatives, such as implementing a Library-wide geospatial information system to address the mutual needs of staff in CRS, Library Services, and the 

Law Library in responding to congressional requests. Other examples of service and 

economy-motivated joint opportunities are the execution of a Library-wide plan for 

the contract and use of mobile devices, development of a business case for Librarywide performance of IT security certification and accreditation requirements, and 

forming the requirements for a single authoring/publishing system for research performed at the Library. 

The Library’s Veterans History Project (VHP), unanimously mandated by both 

houses of Congress, is now the largest oral history project in America. VHP will celebrate its 15th anniversary in October and will soon reach 100,000 recorded oral 

histories. Over the last year this program has collaborated with more than 150 congressional offices, providing constituent services, briefings, and volunteer training 

sessions for interviewing those who served in the military in all America’s wars during the last century. 

In 2014, the Library continued its very popular evening services of Congressional 

Dialogues on Great American Presidents, provided exclusively for Members of Congress. The Library’s new James Madison Council Chairman, David Rubenstein, 

skillfully interviewed renowned experts like David McCullough, Scott Berg, and 

Doris Kearns Goodwin about the challenges and accomplishments of seven iconic 

Presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, 

Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. Members then asked 

questions and made off-the-record comments, having previously studied key original 

documents from each President’s collections in the Library’s vast holdings of early 

Americans. We are continuing this series into 2015, expanding it to include great 
102 

Americans. These unique events regularly attract at least 120 Members of Congress, 

and this year’s series opened on February 3 with a well-attended dinner and dialogue on Benjamin Franklin. 

The Library has presented a particularly rich array of public exhibitions and special events over the past year. More than 112,000 visitors viewed the Magna Carta: 

Muse and Mentor exhibition at the Library from November 6, 2014 to January 19, 

2015 in honor of the 800th anniversary of this document. The King John 1215 

Magna Carta, loaned by the Lincoln Cathedral, was its centerpiece, and rare items 

from the Library’s rich collections showed the Magna Carta’s importance to the development of constitutional law in the United States. Seven United States Supreme 

Court Justices took part in the celebratory events along with a former Chief Justice 

of the United Kingdom, and HRH The Princess Royal, the only daughter of Queen 

Elizabeth II. 

Other new Library exhibitions last year included Mapping a New Nation: Abel 

Buell’s Map of the United States, 1784; A Thousand Years of the Persian Book; and 

The Civil Rights Act of 1965: A Long Struggle to Freedom, including Martin Luther 

King, Jr.’s original copyrighted ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ speech. 

The Library of Congress had an unusually rich year of free poetry readings and 

concerts. Particularly memorable was a program led by the great baritone Thomas 

Hampson celebrating the different historical stages and versions of our national anthem. A star-studded program at a packed Constitution Hall honored Billy Joel with 

the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Lifetime Achievement in American Popular Song. PBS extended the length of its nation-wide television broadcast from its 

customary hour to a first-ever 90 minutes. 

On February 4, 2015 the Library formally opened to researchers the Rosa Parks 

collection of approximately 7,500 manuscripts and 2,500 photographs. On loan to 

the Library for 10 years from the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, the collection includes personal correspondence and photographs, and letters from Presidents. A 

small display of items from the collection will subsequently be on public exhibit. 

During March 4–7 we celebrated the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s 

great speech at his second inaugural with a rare public display of the President’s 

original reading copy. The 15th annual National Book Festival will take place this 

September. 

The Library of Congress is the world’s preeminent reservoir of knowledge. The Library embodies and advances the distinctly American ideal of a knowledge-based democracy. We will be grateful for your consideration of our fiscal 2016 funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH

SERVICE

Madame Chairman, Senator Schatz and members of the subcommittee: 

As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) begins its second century of service 

to Congress, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to present our fiscal year 

2016 budget request. Two thousand fourteen—our centennial year—was a time of 

celebration, reflection, and activities that drew our staff together. We also engaged 

present and former members in discussions concerning CRS, the evolution of the institution and its support for the Congress, and what the future may hold for both 

the Service and Congress. 

I hope you have had the opportunity to read the history we prepared of CRS’s 

first one hundred years, ‘‘CRS at 100: Informing the Legislative Debate Since 1914’’. 

It not only highlights the accomplishments of CRS in support of the Congress but 

also shows the breadth and depth of expertise embodied in our staff and their commitment to our mission of helping provide for a more informed legislature. 

We are also very proud of another special centennial publication, the Senate Rules 

Committee Print, ‘‘The Evolving Congress’’, which features a series of essays analyzing important trends in the evolution of congressional organization and policy 

making over the last many decades. Next month, with support from the Hewlett 

Foundation, we are continuing that important discussion at a special event with 

E.J. Dionne, Michael Gerson, and Frances Lee. I hope you will be able to join us 

for what should be a fascinating evening delving into the history of Congress and 

its future development. 

Last year also marked the 100th anniversary of the Constitution of the United 

States of America Annotated, which we celebrated with a day-long program in September. Popularly known as CONAN, this Senate Document is prepared by attorneys in the CRS American Law Division and tracks the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. The program brought together prominent legal 
103 

scholars and commentators and included a dialogue about the Supreme Court with 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

It was truly an honor to serve as the Director of CRS during this important milestone in our history. 

SUPPORT FOR CONGRESS

While we celebrated our centennial, CRS also provided research and analysis, expert consultation, and an enhanced Web presence to support the full spectrum of 

congressional policy deliberations. In the last year, CRS experts worked with every 

member office and congressional committee to help you and your staffs navigate the 

wide range of complex and controversial issues that confronted Congress. We answered over 61,000 individual requests; had over 7,500 people attend CRS seminars, 

trainings, and briefings; and provided more than 3,500 new or refreshed CRS reports and other products. CRS.gov is now the repository for nearly 10,000 reports 

and other information that is accessible at all times. 

Two high-profile issues that were addressed by the 113th Congress help illustrate 

both the depth and flexibility of CRS work for Congress: 

The 2014 Farm Bill is a good case study of how the Service assists in the regular, 

deliberative process of reauthorizing major, complex legislative programs. From the 

very start of deliberations to replace the expiring 2008 Farm Bill, CRS food and agriculture policy analysts provided in-depth analysis of various legislative proposals 

across a broad spectrum of policy areas that included farm commodity support, conservation, trade, rural development, nutrition, credit, bio-energy, livestock, horticulture, and research. 

Authorizing committees, individual members, and congressional staff called on 

CRS to explain the intricacies of current farm and food policy and to help identify 

and analyze policy options for revamping the Federal farm safety net. As the legislation moved forward, CRS experts continued to provide individualized support, including preparing committee staff for legislative markup, analyzing proposed committee and floor amendments, briefing individual members and their senior policy 

staff, and evaluating a slate of legislative options. 

As a group, CRS analysts conducted several well-attended seminars for congressional staff on the various farm bill titles, with consideration of how farm bill spending is affected by pressures for deficit reduction. These seminars were so popular 

that CRS needed to schedule additional sessions to accommodate interested congressional staff. 

With many provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill expiring before the new legislation 

could be finalized, CRS also fielded many questions about the effects on issues of 

concern for members’ districts. CRS staff responded with authoritative reports and 

tailored briefings to help members manage the evolving situation. 

The overall support to Congress was a testament to the interdisciplinary nature 

of contemporary policy deliberations, as agriculture and budget analysts at CRS collaborated with attorneys to provide comprehensive coverage of the issues. 

Of course, CRS support did not end with enactment of the legislation. After passage, Congress shifted to their oversight role, closely monitoring the Department of 

Agriculture’s implementation of the new law. CRS analysts continue to play an integral role in the oversight process, responding to numerous requests on the implications of the new farm bill, and have conducted a number of ‘‘Agriculture 101’’ briefings for member offices and committee staff about the law. In addition to multiple 

informative reports on the farm bill, CRS developed a side-by-side analysis of the 

new law compared to its predecessor and the Senate and House bills. 

The Ebola Virus Outbreak highlights the flexibility of the Service to provide indepth research and analysis for the unanticipated, fast-breaking global challenges 

that can suddenly find their way onto the legislative agenda. 

Last summer, reports of the rapidly spreading Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) raised 

serious concerns among U.S. and international government officials and lawmakers. 

At one point in early August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there could be over one million cases of EVD globally by 2015 if the rate 

of transmission was not dramatically curbed. Those concerns, which became heightened and accelerated once the first U.S. case was reported, triggered a large number 

of inquiries from congressional offices, along with hearings on the public health, 

legal, and international implications of the disease, as well as the U.S. Government 

response to the crisis. 

The CRS response to this public health crisis was swift, thoughtful, multi-disciplinary, authoritative, and timely. CRS analysts from across the Service supported ongoing congressional hearings and investigations into the response to EVD. To provide a broad spectrum of information, CRS experts from multiple divisions used the 
104 

full range of CRS products—from traditional reports to newer short-form documents, 

including Insights, Legal Sidebars, and FAQs—to examine the crisis from a variety 

of perspectives, including public health, legal, international health and relations, 

transportation and commerce, immigration, homeland security, and clinical research 

and product development. 

Analysts also conducted in-person briefings and hosted a ‘‘Question and Answer’’ 

event that was made available to all members and staff in person and through video 

on the CRS Web site. 

By having deep in-house expertise on a wide range of issues, and the ability for 

CRS experts to work collaboratively, the Service was able to quickly develop the information Congress needed on EVD. That in turn helped members and their staff 

develop appropriate courses of action to respond to a rapidly changing situation with 

broad health and national security implications for the country. 

Other Legislative Topics: While the Farm Bill and the Ebola outbreak provide a 

snapshot of how CRS works, over the last year, CRS provided similar support on 

the entire range of issues before Congress. 

CRS analyzed multiple economic, financial, and budget issues, including tax reform, oversight of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, the Export-Import Bank reauthorization, and Bitcoin, just 

to name a few. Experts also helped congressional offices understand the impact of 

the Government shutdown and tracked and analyzed the fiscal year 2015 budget request and appropriations process throughout the year. Congress looked to CRS for 

support on many complex domestic issues, including unaccompanied immigrant children, veterans’ health, human trafficking, child welfare, violence against women, 

and sexual assault in the military. CRS experts also supported the congressional debate on the Keystone XL pipeline, hydraulic fracturing, re-authorization of Federal 

highway and public transportation programs, and cybersecurity. 

On the foreign affairs front, CRS staff analyzed policy options to address the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the Ukraine; and relations with Russia, North Korea, 

and China. In addition, CRS supported the Congress on pending international free 

trade agreements and monitored the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 

and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 

CRS also presented a symposium on Senate rules changes last year. CRS experts, 

a former parliamentarian, and past Secretaries of the Senate discussed the impact 

of these changes with senior Senate staff in attendance. The program was followed 

by numerous briefings and seminars tailored to member and staff needs. 

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

Over the last year, the Service has been able to fill some critical gaps in our analytical and information professional ranks. We also hired research assistants to support analysts and contribute to a broader mix of products and services and we continue to improve the CRS Web site and technical capabilities. With the additional 

staff, we have replaced about one-third of the decreases in personnel that occurred 

over the past few years due to budget reductions. While we are thinner than we 

would like in some areas, we are constantly monitoring our staffing across the service to ensure that we have the skill sets and expertise needed to support Congress. 

The CRS fiscal year 2016 budget request is $111,956,000 to fund mandatory pay 

and price level changes as well as a program increase to enhance research capacity 

on healthcare policy. 

Health Experts. The budget request includes a program increase of $1,087,000 and 

six FTEs to add six health policy analyst/attorney positions and $250,000 of contractor technical and programming support for large health data systems. This increased analytical capacity is needed to meet the high client demand and fully support the work of Congress on healthcare issues. As the healthcare industry is becoming increasingly complex, additional expertise is needed to analyze for Congress 

recent changes in the financing of health insurance and the delivery of healthcare 

services. Extra analytical support is also needed to support Congress as it confronts 

emerging issues under Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance 

Program, and employer-based and private health insurance. In addition, the regulatory framework has become more complex, and provision of healthcare to veterans 

has come under recent scrutiny. That increase in demand and complexity is putting 

real pressure on CRS health experts, some of whom are shouldering two to three 

times the average number of requests as other CRS staff. The six requested staff 

positions would help relieve that pressure and add expertise in evaluating health 

industry trends and availability, tax and legal issues, veterans’ care, and data evaluation. 
105 

Workforce Initiatives. We are continuing to examine the composition of our workforce to ensure that we have the right mix of skill sets and expertise to best serve 

the Congress. Last year, we hired 11 research assistants to assist analysts and diversify areas of specialization. We also increased our editorial capacity to support 

authors in the preparation of products for Congress and have expanded our graphics 

capabilities to enhance the visual presentation of CRS research and analysis. Our 

information professionals utilize digital librarianship skills, and recent hires have 

reflected changes made to these positions. We plan to critically assess these initiatives to determine how these positions and skill sets best fit into the organization 

and what other modifications to our workforce may be needed. 

Product and Service Enhancements. CRS continues to seek new and innovative 

ways to deliver information and analysis to Congress. In fiscal 2014, CRS increased 

the diversity of its product line by establishing a new product type, the CRS Insight, 

a short, Web-only product designed to present timely information, research, data, 

and analysis in an easily accessible format. Along with the earlier launched Legal 

Sidebar, the Insight responds to client demand for succinct products that are published quickly in response to fast-moving public policy issues. 

CRS is participating in a Library-wide project to develop a geospatial infrastructure that will enable the Service to offer interactive maps to Congress. The goal is 

to make available to Congress fully interactive maps that allow clients to view details of interest and toggle data layers to visualize the resulting differences. We 

have a small team of geographic information system (GIS) analysts and information 

professionals that provide GIS services to congressional clients. GIS uses visualization for the focused analysis of complex concepts. 

CRS established an infographics working group in 2014 to consider methods to 

improve delivery of image-based content in our written products and on our Web 

site. The use of this content to convey information and analysis is widely recognized 

as an effective form of communication. Although image-based content (e.g., tables, 

graphs, maps) produced by CRS is typically embedded into written products, users 

of CRS products could benefit from the creation of a new product line devoted to 

stand-alone, high-quality ‘‘infographics,’’ which present complex information in a 

condensed visual form that may be easily understood without the need for an accompanying written product. A pilot study has begun with the goal of displaying 

infographics products on CRS.gov this year. 

CRS enhanced its Web site home page last year with a modern appearance with 

more space for content and for expanding product lines. The home page is also stylized to the modern user’s preference for mobile access. Other new features of the 

website include graphic images to accompany highlighted reports and icons to help 

the user distinguish the different types of products. A video carousel at the foot of 

the home page highlights CRS videos, and a similar display on issue pages highlights CRS experts who have authored products on selected issues and who are 

available for consultation. 

As part of the Library’s multi-departmental team, CRS contributed to continuing 

development and daily operations of the next generation legislative information system platform and services. Congress.gov will replace two legacy legislative information systems (LIS and THOMAS) with a single, modern one. CRS provided data 

analysis, subject matter expertise consultation, system testing, user testing, coordination of data partner relationships, and support for congressional users and data 

partners. CRS also continues to support the use of the Congress-only LIS until 

equivalent capability is fully developed for the new Congress.gov. Since late September, 2014, Congress.gov has been the official website for U.S. Federal legislative 

information. 

CONCLUSION

As CRS begins its second century, we remain committed to our core values and 

mission: providing comprehensive, authoritative, objective, timely and nonpartisan 

research and analysis on all legislative, oversight, and representational issues of interest to Congress. 

The entire CRS staff works hard every day to ensure that you, your staffs, and 

committees have the information, analysis, and support you need as you do your 

jobs. 

We are very proud of the work we do. But we know we could not have achieved 

all we have in our first 100 years without this subcommittee’s support. I appreciate 

your continued support and look forward to working with you to ensure that CRS 

is a state-of-the-art research service responsive to the information and analytical 

needs of the 21st century Congress. 
106 

1Witnesses included Keith Kupferschmid (General Counsel for the Software & Information Industry Association), Lisa Dunner (Partner at Dunner Law PLLC, on behalf of the American Bar 

Association’s Section on Intellectual Property Law), Nancy Mertzel (Partner at Schoeman 

Updike Kaufman & Stern LLP, on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association), and Robert Brauneis (Professor at the George Washington University Law School). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIA A. PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND

DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony in support of the 

budgetary needs of the United States Copyright Office. 

As always, I am grateful to the Librarian for putting forward the request detailed 

below. While it does not reflect the entirety of Copyright Office needs, it is a reasonable request put forward in a difficult budget environment, and one of many that 

the Librarian has sought to balance. As stated in more detail in the Librarian’s 

written request, the agency is also seeking funding for library acquisitions, storage, 

preservation, and staffing relating to the singularly important national collection. 

The Copyright Office is a congressionally-created department within the Library 

of Congress and is vested with the statutory responsibility of administering the 

Copyright Act and other provisions of title 17, including the national copyright registration and recordation systems and several statutory licenses. Today, the Copyright Office sits at the center of a complex and dynamic legal and regulatory system. 

Its work is vital to all types of businesses, the Congress, courts, and the digital 

economy. 

Copyright industries create jobs, invest in content, and bring to market important 

works of authorship, from films to video games to business software to books to musical works. The technology companies with whom they partner also create jobs, 

drive innovation, and bring to market a variety of platforms and mobile devices that 

have defined the digital economy. It is no surprise that copyright issues are so essential to trade agreements and the global marketplace. 

In past couple of years, the House Judiciary Committee has held extensive hearings on the copyright law, including, for example, the exclusive rights of authors, 

enforcement issues, fair use, and voluntary agreements. The Copyright Office has 

supported Congress in these efforts, including by testifying, assisting with interpretation of the law, and conducting major policy studies. Last year, the Copyright Office issued a major report recommending the creation of a small claims system. This 

year, the Copyright Office published a comprehensive report on the music marketplace and is finalizing additional reports on orphan works and the ‘‘making available’’ right. 

Congress is also reviewing the Copyright Office. On September 18, 2014, the 

House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing on the Copyright Office, at 

which I testified. On February 26, 2015, it held a hearing entitled, ‘‘The U.S. Copyright Office: Its Functions and Resources,’’ at which external witnesses testified.1

During these hearings, Members of Congress covered a range of questions including 

budgetary and resource needs, efforts to upgrade and improve Copyright Office services, and the Copyright Office’s current statutory and constitutional structure within 

the Library. We are respectful of these proceedings and are ready to respond to inquiries or otherwise participate, as appropriate. 

Since I was appointed Register in June, 2011, I have focused the Copyright Office 

on projects that are self-evaluative, including how to upgrade our current practices 

and whether to create entirely new paradigms for certain processes. This might include, for example, the ways in which we register works of authorship or record documents such as assignments, licenses, security interests, and other forms of ownership. Most would agree that the Copyright Office must be more interoperable with 

the technology of its customers, and must offer timelier and more innovative services, including business-to-business data exchange and applications that work on 

mobile devices. 

As I explain further below, the Copyright Office has spent the past few years engrossed in foundational work, including rebuilding and rethinking staff positions, 

updating registration practices, assessing legal and business issues related to recordation, and conducting a variety of public-facing projects to engage our customers 

as to the future Copyright Office. We have undertaken this work to ensure that we 

make plans that will have a meaningful impact on our customers, and make IT and 

staffing investments that are both responsible and prudent. We are now at the point 

where we are compiling research, coordinating conclusions from reports, and engaging in cost and other business analysis. This work will proceed in accordance with 

available funding. 
107 

2The Licensing Budget request is $5.388 million, all of which derives from licensing royalty 

and filing fee collections paid by private parties (copyright owners as well as cable and satellite 

licensees) pursuant to statutory licenses administered by the Copyright Office. The requested 

increase is for mandatory pay and price-related increases. 3The Copyright Royalty Judges report by statute to the Librarian, but the Register administers their budget as an administrative courtesy. The budget request for the Copyright Royalty 

Judges is $1.584 million to support mandatory pay-related and price level increases, of which 

$389,000 (for non-personnel-related expenses) derives from licensing collections. The remainder, 

$1.195 million in appropriated dollars, is to cover the personnel-related expenses of the Judges 

and their staff. 

This Committee—the Senate Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations—is also interested in the ability of the Copyright Office to evolve. In 2014, the 

Report language that accompanied the fiscal year 2015 appropriation stated: 

The Committee recognizes that the digital revolution has transformed the copyright marketplace and, as a result, the role of the Copyright Office in our economy. The Committee finds that Copyright Office will also need to evolve and 

adapt to the challenges of these new realities. In fact, the Committee notes that 

public comments recently submitted by the copyright community indicate that 

the Copyright Office is currently in need of significant IT and related upgrades 

in order to be fully interoperable with the digital economy it serves. 

The Report also included a directive to the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) ‘‘to examine the Copyright Office’s current information technology infrastructure and identify any deficiencies or obstacles to serving the copyright community 

in a modernized environment.’’ We have responded to GAO’s questions regarding IT 

management during the past several months and hope the subcommittee will find 

this information helpful. 

I would also note that on February 18, 2015, we released a report of the Technical 

Upgrades Special Project Team. This team was charged with assessing the concerns 

and suggestions of the Copyright Office’s customers during the past few years, and 

has made a number of recommendations regarding future services that would require sound enterprise architecture and a robust IT infrastructure. I am grateful to 

the Project Team for this valuable contribution, which will serve as an important 

resource for the Copyright Office, the Library, and the Congress. The Report, notice 

of public inquiry, and public comments are available at http://copyright.gov/docs/ 

technicallupgrades/. 

Thank you for your support of the Copyright Office and for considering the appropriations request put forward today. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Copyright Office is funded through a combination of fees for services and 

dedicated appropriated dollars. The Copyright Office administers funds through 

three separate budgets or program areas: (1) Basic Budget, (2) Licensing Budget,2

and (3) Copyright Royalty Judges Budget.3 Together, the requests for these total 

$58.875 million for fiscal year 2016. 

The focus of this statement, however, is the Basic Budget, which funds most of 

the Copyright Office’s core work and operations. The Basic Budget request this year 

is $51.9 million. Approximately $30 million of this is derived from fees for which 

the Copyright Office is seeking spending authority. The Copyright Office is also requesting $21.9 million in appropriated dollars. 

This request calls for an increase of $2.705 million dollars and the reinstatement 

of 25 FTEs. Fees would fund about $2.029 million of the total; we would use the 

fees to backfill 20 vacant positions in our registration program. As discussed below, 

the Copyright Office implemented a revised schedule of fees on May 1, 2014, following an extensive public process. Putting this money back into registration services is a fitting investment. 

The remaining $675,825 is a request for appropriated dollars; we would use this 

funding to add five new hires to our recordation staff. 

It should be understood that some of the Copyright Office’s operational costs are 

offset by services provided by the Library of Congress through appropriations it receives as the parent agency. These costs are not itemized or tracked, and they are 

not taken into account when the Copyright Office analyzes and implements its fee 

schedules. 
108 

4This number tracks losses since 2010. The Copyright Office today has 76 professionally 

trained examiners to handle approximately half a million copyright claims involving millions of 

works of authorship; we had close to 130 examiners in 2010. Assuming we can hire 12–32 examiners in 2015 and 2016, the Copyright Office will still be below capacity, particularly given the 

increasing complexity of addressing digital works and new practices. 

ADMINISTERING THE COPYRIGHT LAW

Registration 

If the subcommittee approves our request for additional spending authority, most 

of the 2 million dollars would go to strengthening the registration staff under the 

expert guidance of Robert Kasunic, Associate Register and Director of Registration 

Policy and Practice. In fiscal year 2014, the Copyright Office approved and registered claims in approximately 476,000 creative works, including 219,000 literary 

works and 65,000 sound recordings. Since fiscal year 2012, however, the Copyright 

Office has been experiencing an upward trend in the backlog of claims and average 

processing time for applications. In 2012, the average processing time for claims 

filed on paper applications was 4.8 months; the current processing time is 13.5 

months. The average processing time for claims filed online electronically has also 

increased, rising from 3.1 months to 4.4 months over the same period. These increases are mostly attributable to the loss of registration staff, which has declined 

by approximately 50 FTEs.4 (In the case of electronic claims, some of the delay 

stems from ongoing problems with technology systems, as well.) 

As we hire new registration experts, the Copyright Office must train them in the 

copyright law, regulations and practices, and prepare them to address a constantly 

changing world of content and business models. The lengthy training schedule, coupled with the fact that the backlog continues to grow, provides a sense of urgency 

to reverse staff losses in this critical division. It is also the case that practices are 

becoming more complex than before, as authors, publishers, and producers continue 

to change the ways in which they create and disseminate works of authorship. 

In December 2014, we completed a major, multi–year special project by releasing 

the Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition. The first major revision in two decades, the Compendium is a comprehensive guidebook regarding registration and other Copyright Office practices. It is relied upon by Copyright Office 

staff but also serves as a recognized authority consulted by copyright owners, legal 

practitioners, and the courts, which frequently give the Copyright Office deference 

in registration policy and related issues. This was an important and necessary accomplishment for the Copyright Office, and one that we announced publicly in our 

2011–2013 work plan, entitled Priorities and Special Projects of the U.S. Copyright 

Office. 

Notably, the Compendium is just the beginning of a digital makeover for registration. It provides the necessary legal foundation by which the Copyright Office may 

now pursue regulations and practices that recognize and serve the digital economy. 

For example, the Copyright Office will need to determine the rules and standards 

by which it registers: works that change routinely (like news Web sites); works that 

are disseminated by streaming instead of copies (like on-demand film, television, 

and sports programming); works that contain valuable and proprietary source code 

(like business software); and works that contain copy controls and other 

anticircumvention measures (like video games). 

Recording Assignments, Security Interests, and Other Copyright Documents 

Regarding the recordation provisions of the Copyright Act, the Copyright Office 

also needs resources. The requested increase of $675,825 in appropriated dollars for 

fiscal 2016 would fund five new hires in the Recordation section. The Copyright Office has a very lean permanent staff of 13 dedicated to this function at the moment. 

In 2014, this staff recorded 8,146 documents pertaining to copyright interests in 

more than 144,376 identified works. This function remains a paper process, however, in which staff manually index the materials received. 

In fiscal 2015, the Congress allocated $1.5 million to the Copyright Office to conduct planning and business analysis related to updating the recordation function. 

The long-term objective is to automate the document submission and review process 

to include an online filing capability for customers. Significant changes are also contemplated regarding service options and the content and format of the public record. 

As noted below, the business analysis we are now engaged in follows 2 years of research regarding the overall technology of the Copyright Office (relevant to its customer base) as well as the relevant legal and business issues related to recording 

documents in the online environment. The additional FTEs we are requesting for 
109 

Recordation represent new positions with skills that will be more appropriate to an 

online function. 

The future of the document recordation function has been an intense focus of the 

Copyright Office for several years, and it too was publicly announced in the 2011– 

2013 Priorities work plan. In the past 2 years, the Copyright Office engaged stakeholders through multiple public roundtables on potential changes to the legal and 

administrative aspects of document recordation and published a major report. We 

were able to staff this work by making targeted appointments and leveraging research partners. 

In 2014, with the Librarian’s support, I established a dedicated Office of Public 

Records and Repositories. For the first time, as of March 2014, these functions are 

now headed by Ms. Elizabeth Scheffler, a senior level officer reporting directly to 

the Register. (As of January, 2015, Ms. Scheffler has been temporarily reassigned 

to the Librarian’s Office where she is serving as the Interim CIO for the Library 

until a permanent CIO can be recruited.) 

I also appointed the first Abraham L. Kaminstein Scholar in Residence, Professor 

Robert Brauneis of George Washington University. In addition to his own independent research, Professor Brauneis completed an in-depth study of the relevant 

legal issues related to updating the business and legal issues related to recording 

copyright documents. Similarly, through Jacqueline Charlesworth, the Copyright Office General Counsel, the Copyright Office engaged with Stanford University Law 

School in an academic partnership. Working with Professor Paul Goldstein, the 

Copyright Office considered recordation questions from the perspective of students 

in Silicon Valley. In January 2015, we released the report of the Kaminstein Scholar, entitled Transforming Document Recordation at the U.S. Copyright Office, which 

in turn references the work of the Stanford students. 

Statutory Licenses 

The Copyright Office administers several statutory licenses that require the Copyright Office to manage and distribute royalties, including those collected on behalf 

of copyright owners of broadcast television programming that is retransmitted by 

cable and satellite operators. The disposition of these private monies is determined 

by the Copyright Royalty Judges (together, the Copyright Royalty Board or ‘‘CRB’’) 

in distribution proceedings. The work of the CRB is reviewable by the Register for 

legal error, but for constitutional reasons the CRB reports to the Librarian as head 

of the agency. In fiscal year 2014, the Copyright Office collected approximately $318 

million in royalties and made disbursements in accordance with CRB’s decisions. 

In fiscal 2014, the Copyright Office completed a second pilot of an electronic licensing system to facilitate its administration of statutory licenses. The end goal is 

to launch a system that supports online filing and processing of statements of account by statutory licensees. As with all Licensing Division operations, this administrative initiative is being funded by private funds collected under the relevant licenses. 

SUPPORTING THE CONGRESS AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

Copyright Policy and the Digital Economy 

With respect to policy, the Copyright Office has been at the center of discussions 

regarding potential updates to the Copyright Act, working closely with Members of 

Congress and, in particular, the House Committee on the Judiciary. As mentioned 

above, the House Judiciary Chairman convened twenty copyright hearings in the 

past 2 years, with the clear mission of comprehensively reviewing the law to assess 

how well it is working in the digital age. As Register, I have both testified on these 

issues and lent the impartial expertise of my Office to assist the process. Associate 

Register Karyn Temple Claggett, and her policy and international affairs staff, were 

of particular assistance during these proceedings. 

It would be an understatement to say that the copyright law is complex. Indeed, 

in the context of the digital economy, the entire copyright ecosystem is in a state 

of ongoing transformation and innovation. While challenging, this is also an exciting 

development for the United States, which has long championed a strong but balanced intellectual property framework to the benefit of both the content and technology industries. 

In addition to its service to the Congress, the Copyright Office supports the work 

of the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Department of Commerce. This work involves major 

trade agreements, treaty negotiations, Supreme Court briefs, and other interagency 

and intergovernmental matters. The Copyright Office has relationships with copy-
110 

right and other intellectual property offices around the world, and is frequently involved in intergovernmental and bilateral meetings, as well. 

Policy Reports of the Copyright Office 

In February 2015, the Copyright Office published an in-depth study and legislative recommendations entitled Copyright and the Music Marketplace. This report, 

which analyzes the statutory framework and business environment of the music industry, is indicative of the Copyright Office’s policy role. The report has been recognized by Members of Congress, songwriters and composers, music publishers, performing rights organizations, record labels, and digital delivery services. The expertise comes from the Copyright Office’s daily role in administering the Copyright Act, 

and the legal and cultural significance of issues such as these is an important factor 

we use to recruit talented lawyers. Nonetheless, the lack of resources, including insufficient staff and travel budgets, makes for a challenging environment for even the 

most dedicated of public servants. 

In addition to the music study mentioned above, the Copyright Office is currently 

preparing to issue reports on orphan works and mass digitization issues, as well as 

the application of authors’ ‘‘making available’’ rights in the online environment 

under U.S. law. Beyond studies, the Copyright Office works closely with congressional offices every day to provide assistance on complex issues. 

Through its work with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, the 

Copyright Office is also nearing completion of an online index of fair use cases to 

serve as a resource for authors and others. 

CHALLENGES OF THE CURRENT FISCAL ENVIRONMENT

The Copyright Office carries out a significant workload for the benefit of the Nation. It is doing so, however, with reduced staffing and technology deficiencies. 

These challenges are part of broader discussions throughout the Library, but I will 

note them here briefly. 

Staffing and Appointments 

The Copyright Office’s total staff is smaller than it should be to perform its complex and important statutory assignments. We currently have approximately 360 

filled positions under the Copyright Basic Budget, a number that will improve somewhat if fees remain steady and we can make the 25 requested hires in Registration 

and Recordation in fiscal 2016. Internally, staff reductions are felt as a workload 

distribution increase on already over-burdened employees. And over time the Copyright Office will be at a disadvantage if it cannot attract and retain experts, particularly in the legal and technology fields. 

To compound the stress, our authorized FTE ceiling will be reduced to 411 (for 

the Copyright Basic Budget including the 25 FTEs mentioned above) following recent congressional direction to the Library to reconcile and eliminate unfunded positions. This is a considerable reduction at a time when the Copyright Office needs 

staff and would in fact hire them if it had funding. In 2005, by comparison, the FTE 

ceiling was 492 (again, for the Copyright Basic Budget). 

On a positive note, the Copyright Office completed the first phase of reorganizing 

its departments and resources in 2014 and has begun filling senior-level positions 

as a foundational step toward a fully modernized Copyright Office. Among other 

things, with the Librarian’s support, I established the first Copyright Office Chief 

Information Officer (CIO). Doug Ament was appointed to the position in March 

2014, after serving several years of heading the Copyright Office’s small technology 

office. As CIO, Mr. Ament advises the Register on strategic IT issues and engages 

regularly with our customers, as well as technology experts in the government and 

private sector. He, in turn, appointed a new Director of the Copyright Technology 

Office, who reported for duty this January, and is responsible for managing day-today activities of the Copyright Office’s IT team and overseeing compliance issues 

with Federal law, regulations, information technology standards, and best practices. 

Although these are positive first steps, the reality is that Copyright Office has a 

very small technology office that as of this writing has approximately 23 FTEs. This 

office has always functioned as a liaison office to the parent agency, which manages 

the agency IT resources and has more than 200 IT staff. I believe that engaging 

in the kind of IT development activities the Copyright Office needs to achieve in the 

coming years—including building the next generation online registration system, 

achieving interoperability with private databases, accommodating mobile technologies, and more—will require the agency to reassess this management paradigm. 

The Copyright Office also has a new Office of Public Records and Repositories, 

headed by an experienced senior-level official who reports directly to the Register. 

Similarly, I appointed William Roberts, an experienced copyright lawyer and long- 
111 

time public servant, as the first Associate Register and Director Public Information 

and Education. As with other positons mentioned here, this position carries out significant responsibilities, including managing the substantive content and protocols 

of www.copyright.gov, the portal through which customers access legal materials, 

participate in rulemakings, register claims to copyright, and record licenses and 

other copyright documents. 

Government Accountability Office 

The agency’s IT systems and infrastructure are of paramount concern for the 

Copyright Office, and it has been working with the Library, the public, and the Government Accountability Office (‘‘GAO’’) to assess IT-related issues in the past year. 

Last year, the House Appropriations Committee directed the GAO to conduct a Library-wide audit of IT management and governance. Copyright Office staff provided 

information for the audit and were interviewed by the auditors. 

Moreover, this subcommittee directed the GAO to review the technology issues relating specifically to the Copyright Office. GAO was instructed to identify ‘‘any deficiencies or obstacles to serving the copyright community in a modernized environment.’’ The subcommittee also directed the GAO to ‘‘provide a legal and technical 

evaluation of the information technology infrastructure that the Copyright Office 

shares with the Library of Congress.’’ These directives followed from the subcommittee’s recognition that ‘‘the digital revolution has transformed the copyright marketplace and, as a result, the role of the Copyright Office in our economy.’’ The subcommittee report also cited comments and concerns submitted by a variety of actors 

throughout the copyright community indicating that the Copyright Office needs significant IT upgrades to become fully interoperable with the digital economy that it 

serves. 

Copyright Office staff has been responsive to GAO’s team, which included some 

of the same auditors assigned to the Library audit. We appreciate the work of the 

auditors and look forward to their findings. Having completed several years of core 

foundational research, the Copyright Office remains extremely concerned about recommending major IT investments while continuing to utilize the singular enterprise 

architecture and IT infrastructure of the Library, which is under considerable 

strain. Service from the Library has been inconsistent at best, as the Library’s IT 

staff manages multiple projects and systems from across the agency. Indeed, although the Library has more than two hundred IT staff, none are devoted exclusively to the Copyright Office. It is difficult to see how this kind of paradigm is sustainable. In short, the Library is faced with multiple missions and an array of 

equally important but competing concerns, in some ways adding up to an impossible 

job. 

Technical Upgrades Special Project 

During the past few years, the Director of the Copyright Technology Office, who 

has served as the Copyright Office’s first CIO since last February, chaired a special 

project designed to assess the areas in which the Copyright Office needs to modernize, which included soliciting the talent and expertise of the Copyright Office’s 

customers and stakeholders. In February 2015, the project team delivered its findings and recommendations to me, and I have in turn released them to the public. 

This document, Report and Recommendations of the Technical Upgrade Special 

Project Team, will be a very helpful resource as we consider future strategies for 

the Copyright Office. The report acknowledges challenges with the current user experience and with access to the public record, while offering recommendations for 

improvement, such as developing a more dedicated IT infrastructure to support the 

registration and recordation functions, and deploying Application Programming 

Interfaces (‘‘APIs’’) to provide for data exchange with the rich data of private copyright databases. The Report is available on the Copyright Office Web site. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO SET FEES

The Copyright Office appreciates the subcommittee’s dedicated appropriation in 

fiscal 2015 of $2.25 million, with $750,000 to fund backlog reduction in registration 

and $1.5 million for year one planning and analysis for the reengineering the document recordation process. 

More globally, as Register I have concluded that we should reconsider the funding 

process for the Copyright Office as it relates to fees. For business planning, including expenditures for IT and related issues involving multi–year contracts, the Copyright Office is constrained by the inability to spend across multi-year budget cycles. 

In addition, the Copyright Office would benefit from more flexibility in both its retention and spending of fee revenues, particularly in relation to longer-term capital 
112 

improvements. This would require a review of the statutory provisions for fees in 

Chapter 7 of the Copyright Act. 

I would like to thank the subcommittee members for your support of the Copyright Office and national copyright system. Our fiscal 2016 budget request, if approved, would address some immediate, high-priority needs, primarily through the 

authority to hire staff and use fee revenues received for services rendered. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you so much. 

I’m going to begin with a question about—and this will go to the 

posters, I believe, and thank you for visiting my office and helping 

me understand some of the challenges. In your budget request, you’ve asked for $4.8 million and nine 

new FTEs for the National Collection Stewardship Program to provide additional collections space. I understand this is an interim solution that consists of some additional compact shelving within the 

Library’s existing buildings and the lease of additional storage 

space. 

Would you please explain why this is necessary and if and how 

the work would be phased out? 

NATIONAL COLLECTION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I would just say that the Library adds approximately 2.5 million items to the collections each year, and of 

the 2.5 million analog items, 250,000 volumes are books which 

make up the largest component of our immediate space requirements. 

I’d like to turn to Mark Sweeney, who can provide you with more 

specific details on the emergency collection storage needs of the Library and answer your questions more fully. 

Mr. Sweeney. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Collection storage is a critical need for the Library 

right now. As Dr. Billington said, we are growing at about 250,000 

volumes per year. We have more than a million items that are 

stored on the floor or on book trucks in our Capitol Hill buildings. 

We have about a million volumes stored at our Landover Annex 

Complex that is in a less-than-desirable environment, and we’re 

about 10 years behind in building Fort Meade preservation modules for the growth of our collection. 

So our plan right now is to be able to occupy Ft. Meade Module 

5 when it becomes available in late 2017. At the same time, we are 

looking at space in our existing buildings here on Capitol Hill. This 

is primarily the Madison Building, where we can get greater collection density by installing compact shelving. We’re limited in how 

much of that we can do, but it’s based on the physical limitations 

of the building, what collection weight the building can handle. 

In addition to that, we’re requesting an interim lease facility. 

This would be a 5-year lease with additional 5-year options. 

Senator CAPITO. Where is that lease? If I could just interrupt you 

quickly, where is that facility? 

Mr. SWEENEY. At this time we’re working with the Architect of 

the Capitol to identify a facility that can meet the requirements 

that we’ve already provided them. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. 

Mr. SWEENEY. The two posters that we have to the left over here, 

the first one, the one closest to me demonstrates the books that are 

on the floor, as well as book trucks. This arrangement inhibits our 
113 

ability to retrieve material. It also puts the books at risk in terms 

of damage. And then the lower image, number 3, demonstrates a 

location in which we have a structural deficiency in one of our storage buildings. 

The poster to the left of that is our solutions. The first is a photograph of our high-density preservation storage facility at Fort 

Meade, a wonderful storage environment, that can not only hold an 

awful lot of material but also can increase the longevity of those 

collections; as well as image number 2, which is an example of 

using existing space and getting more density by shelving material 

by size. The third is an example of compact storage solutions that 

were installed in our Adams Building, which give us about a 40 

percent increase in capacity in that space. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, following up on that, if you’re collecting 

more than you’ve ever collected before, and part of your budget 

speaks to the digitization of certain items and certain other things 

in terms of the demands on your budget, what kind of prioritization 

is the Library doing in terms of reconfiguring what your collection 

priorities might be in terms of trying to balance the burgeoning collection that you’re doing here, the digital you’re doing here, and 

maybe meshing that with some sort of efficiencies? 

DIGITAL COLLECTION CENTER

Dr. BILLINGTON. Between the additional small elements, relatively, that we’re adding to the digital collection center, and the 

priorities involved that Mr. Sweeney was able to speak to—adjudicating between digital and a hard-copy or analog version—qualitative judgments are made on the basis of what is the substance. 

There are qualitative judgments made throughout the process of 

collection building. But I think Mark can speak to that in more detail. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Well, I would say that we live in an interesting 

time in which there is just an explosion of creativity. So we’re living in a ‘‘both’’ world, both having to collect analog at scale, as well 

as emerging digital collections. To date, our digital conversion program has primarily been about access. That’s taking an analog 

item already in our collection, putting it in digital form, and making it accessible on the Web. That doesn’t mean that we no longer 

need the analog copy or that it shouldn’t be part of our collection. 

We have taken some steps to reduce holdings. We are reducing our 

dependence on second copies of works in our collection so that we 

can get some efficiency there. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. SWEENEY. However, this is not going to accommodate the 

volume of work that we anticipate will be available on the market 

that will be needed for Congress and the American people. 

Senator CAPITO. Let me ask you this. You mentioned in your 

opening statement that your FTEs are way down, yet in the budget 

you’re asking for 15 more full-time equivalent positions for a new 

digital collections center. Help me understand how some people— 

their positions aren’t being filled is probably how you’re doing that, 

I would imagine, through attrition and other ways. Is that how you 

got down to that number, and are you ramping up for different 

skill sets, and are you cross-training folks so that when the digital 
114 

collection center is inventoried they can move into different parts 

of the Library? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I think that maybe Mr. Sweeney and possibly 

the Deputy would want to add a few words on that. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Of course, our level of staffing down is primarily 

through attrition. There is a different skill set that’s required to 

work with digital content, and the staff that we have available, the 

diminished number of staff, are primarily preoccupied with dealing 

with the analog collections, which have also grown. 

So the DC2, the digital collection center, is an opportunity for us 

to meet an emerging demand that we have, and this is not about 

converting analog items into digital form. It’s primarily about dealing with digital content that’s newly being received by the Library, 

where there is no analog equivalent. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. I wanted to compliment you on the Books 

for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. We talked about this 

when you were in my office, and you mentioned that West Virginians have chosen to access this as a service, and I think that 

it has been a great service for those folks. So I want to say thank 

you on that, and I was wondering, with the budget request there, 

is there enough there to cover these needs? Obviously, it’s the only 

free access library in the country, is the way I understand it, for 

the blind and physically handicapped. If you could just give me 

hope for the future on that and where you see that going. 

FUNDING FOR BOOKS FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, since 1931 the National Library Service 

has been addressing the needs of this important constituency. I 

think Karen Keninger, our excellent head of the National Library 

Service, can provide you with the details and answers to your questions. I know that there are five major distribution centers in West 

Virginia, but she’ll give you more of the details. 

Ms. KENINGER. Thank you, Senator. The budget that we have requested will be sufficient for the upcoming year. We are very fortunate in that regard at this point in time. So we are okay there. 

Senator CAPITO. Finding more people, becoming aware of the 

services, is your reach broadening? 

Ms. KENINGER. We are actually in the process of launching a 

public education and information program that will, we believe, expand our reach and increase our service. We have a lot of things 

to offer people, and it’s always been a challenge to let people know 

that we’re there at the time that they are ready to take advantage 

of it. We share that responsibility with our partners in all of the 

States, and they do what they can. We’re going to be doing a national program, as well as helping the states with some local and 

regional advertising and outreach as well. So we’re hoping that 

we’ll be able to expand our reach significantly in the next couple 

of years. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, thank you. 

Another question I had, you mentioned in your opening statement that you had a world reach, you’re the world’s resource, and 

we’ve been reading news reports of ISIS members destroying artifacts of ancient civilizations. 
115 

I’m curious to know if the Library’s overseas offices have been 

successful in salvaging any art relics or artifacts that may have 

been or may yet be targeted for destruction, and how has the Library’s overseas operation been impacted, if at all, by any kind of 

ongoing terrorist activities in the Middle East? Because you have 

several offices in the Middle East. 

IMPACT OF TERRORISM ON OVERSEAS OPERATIONS

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, we do. Of course, three-dimensional objects, 

the kinds of things that are in museums, are not part of the Library’s collection policy. But the sort of paper-based things, archival things, books, maps, the things which record the knowledge and 

essential information about many of these countries, have been 

very much on our mind. 

We’ve played a role. We don’t have a foreign aid budget, but we 

have expertise in dealing with fires and damage, which the State 

Department will fund trips for. We provide the expertise, which we 

have done in the case of the Iraq National Library to a very substantial degree. 

The damage that has been done in Egypt, where we have a Cairo 

office, and damage or real destruction of the historic laws of Afghanistan, where we have duplicate copies of some of this material 

and can restore some of the historical memory of Afghanistan in 

our Pakistani office, are examples of the kinds of damage, associated with fire or water, where restoration assistance has been provided working through our overseas bases. We had to move our 

Cairo office, which collects generally in the Arab world, when there 

was chaos there. The Cairo office was directed from Washington for 

a while. 

The overseas offices are directed by American employees, but 

there are multiple foreign service nationals who work on building 

the collections. In certain areas like Yemen most recently and in 

large parts of Syria, options have been limited. We still get some 

things from Damascus, but not much from Aleppo, for example. 

Our six overseas offices are mostly in danger spots. The one in 

Nairobi gave us additional background, for instance, on our first 

African American President. We also collect in these overseas offices for other research libraries in America that conduct research 

in these languages, who pay for the materials they receive. 

So the overseas offices are an enormous asset for America, a very 

important service that we’re able to provide. 

Mark may want to add something to that since that’s part of his 

immense domain as keeper of the National Collection. But it is also 

an international collection of great importance, and Mark may 

want to add a word. 

Mr. SWEENEY. I would just say on the impact of terrorism on our 

operations, first we’ve had to contribute to capital cost sharing for 

improved security in embassies, because that’s primarily where we 

operate out of. So that’s had a budget impact on us. In Cairo and 

Islamabad, both of our directors have had to be out of country for 

periods of time because of security issues. We’ve also had the offices closed for periods of time so that the national staff weren’t 

available to be able to work there. 
116 

So it’s a difficult situation, but we continue to work with our 

staff there, as well as with agents that we have in some of the 

problem countries in order to be able to acquire material. Sometimes they’ll hold material for a period of time for us until it can 

be safely sent to Washington. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. Well, I think that’s an aspect of the Library of Congress that not many Americans really know about, and 

I wanted to highlight that because it’s an interesting service. I 

think if we’re going to learn the lessons of the past, we have to preserve the documentation and news and everything else that revolves around that. 

My last question will be around the Congressional Research 

Service, which every member of the House or Senate, has used. It 

is a vital resource to us as a non-partisan, very objective view of 

a variety of issues, obscure and not-so-obscure. 

HEALTHCARE EXPERTISE IN CRS

But the budget request is asking for six full-time equivalent positions for the expertise of healthcare. I understand the need for six 

more people for the expertise in healthcare with all of the various 

things that are moving around with the ACA and Medicare and 

Medicaid. It’s very complicated and it needs to be examined as 

closely as possible. 

But I would ask, are there other areas where less expertise is 

needed where you can shift people? Or do you feel that healthcare 

is the premier need right now? Does that mean in 10 years it will 

be something else? Do you have any feel for that on the CRS? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Dr. Mary Mazanec, who is actually a medical 

doctor as well as a qualified lawyer, is the best person—— 

Senator CAPITO. She must like school. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I would just make this one quick comment, and 

that is that you need real expertise. I think they only have one expert working mainly in this field. She can specify exactly. But you 

can’t spread them too thin or you don’t have the kind of highly specialized expertise that for 100 years now the Congressional Research Service (CRS) within the Library has been providing to Congress. So I think this is the minimal request, and it’s not solely, 

but it’s mainly for healthcare. 

Dr. Mazanec can explain. 

Dr. MAZANEC. Thank you. I would echo what Dr. Billington said. 

In the last 5 years, and that’s about my tenure at CRS, our staffing 

numbers have come down, and we have looked at portfolios as people have retired and left CRS. We have reassigned issue areas. 

We’re spread very thin, especially in the healthcare area. It’s received the highest volume of requests across the Service. It receives 

about 10 percent of our targeted inquiries. 

On top of that, the capacity that we’re seeking in these six FTEs 

really is not adequately represented in the current staffing. It requires academic study and professional experience that we don’t 

sufficiently have; for example, a health tax policy expert, or an expert on the private insurance sector, the industry. 

As you stated, Chairman, the healthcare sector is becoming increasingly complex as it evolves. There is increased regulation. So 

I also think there are emerging issues every day in Medicare and 
117 

Medicaid. I don’t think that healthcare is going to become a quiescent issue area in the near term, or in the longer term, especially 

as the population ages and their health needs increase. Healthcare 

expenditures also represent a significant percentage of our national 

economy, and I am told by my experts, my health experts, that 40 

percent-plus of Americans currently receive health benefits at least 

in part from various Federal programs. 

So I really do think that we need to build additional capacity in 

this area. 

Senator CAPITO. I said that was my last question, but this will 

be a short one. 

We’ve had testimony from the GAO and others that they’re having difficulty finding the level of expertise they need mostly in the 

economics field. Do you share that same difficulty finding expertise, 

or do you rely mostly on, once folks get in the door, training them 

on how to research, et cetera? 

Dr. MAZANEC. We do both, but there is a certain expertise that 

has to come in through the door, and I would agree with both Doug 

Elmendorf and Gene Dodaro that healthcare economists are very 

marketable. They’re difficult to recruit because there is such demand today, and even more difficult to retain. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. Thank you. 

Senator Schatz. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chair Capito. 

I think it’s important in the digital age to remember that books 

matter, libraries matter. I subscribe to the ‘‘both/and’’ approach. I 

support the Library’s effort to incorporate digital material into its 

collections and make materials available online whenever possible, 

but I also support the Library in continuing to collect physical materials. 

It’s important to recognize that search engines are not curated 

by experts. Libraries have not and cannot be replaced by the Internet. 

Funding for the Library of Congress, which we review today, supports the subject-matter experts and library scientists who curate 

and preserve American creativity and scholarship. It’s this worldclass knowledge and care that makes the Library of Congress the 

premiere repository of our Nation’s historic works and original 

knowledge, and the largest, broadest-reaching library in the world. 

It’s our responsibility to show this to our children. Libraries aren’t 

dusty museums that the Internet left behind. They are living, 

breathing, and growing institutions that deserve our investment. 

This makes our job of ensuring that the Library has the resources 

it needs to curate, preserve, and store its collections especially important. 

BUILDING THE DIGITAL COLLECTION

My first question for the Library of Congress has to do with digital collections. Due to the rapid growth of digital technology and 

content, the rate of the Library’s digital acquisitions now rivals 

that of its analog collections. You may not characterize it as analog. 
118 

I’m interested to learn how the Library plans to build and improve 

upon its digital capacities to best fulfill its historic mission. 

So, what is your long-term vision on building the digital collection, and how is that reflected in the budget request? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think I should perhaps turn that over to 

Liz Scheffler, our new interim chief information officer. She’s been 

working to deal both with the infrastructure question, the status, 

and the outline of our future path and strategy in this area. But 

perhaps we should also call on Mark Sweeney, because the integration of the digital, the choice of prioritization of whether you take 

a digital or an analog object when both is available depends on the 

substance, because we’re interested in the best substance. 

But I would just say, before I turn it over to my colleagues on 

this very important question, I appreciate your general statement 

as well as your focus on this, because integrating the digital with 

the analog so that we can answer the questions the Congress asks 

and the Nation requires a qualitative selection process for its national collection. So nothing could be more important. 

I’ll begin with Liz Scheffler, who has a great deal of experience 

in this and is our interim chief information officer, and then I’ll call 

on Mark Sweeney who will answer the other questions that she 

may not cover. 

Liz, go ahead. 

Ms. SCHEFFLER. Thank you, Dr. Billington, and thank you so 

much for the question. 

My focus is primarily on the ability to accept what the Library 

decides it wants to collect on the digital side, and working alongside Library Services, the Law Library, and also Copyright, on how 

it will be stored and preserved for the future. My primary focus 

right now as part of the overall Library IT strategic planning that 

I’m leading is planning for the long-term storage needs on the technology side which, looking at the rapid growth we’ve had—and I 

should say it like this: last year it was triple what we had expected, and we do not expect that to end, as far as the growth levels grow, of receiving the digital materials. 

So we’re looking forward to working alongside Mark Sweeney 

and the others as we plan what will be the needs. 

I’m going to turn it over to Mark because Mark is really the expert. 

Senator SCHATZ. Well, can I just ask a question? There are several questions. One of them is how, operationally, you’re going to 

do this. Another is who makes the judgments and what judgments 

are to be made about either what comes in digitally and then gets 

archived or comes in in analog form and then gets digitized? But 

then the other question is, to what extent is this all reflected in the 

budget request? So, could you speak to those questions? 

Ms. SCHEFFLER. Okay. Let me go first and say we look to the Library side, basically those who are in charge of the curatorial aspects, to be providing to the technology side what will be their 

needs and what they will be collecting and what will be digitized, 

and that we work as a partnership. 

Senator SCHATZ. But does the expertise, is it the same set of 

knowledge and expertise and all the rest of it on the Library side, 

so to speak, or is there a growing field of specialized expertise in 
119 

the curating of digital materials? Because it seems to me that may 

not be the same expertise. 

Ms. SCHEFFLER. There is a different expertise, and I’m going to 

rely on Mark Sweeney, who leads Library Service, to discuss what 

that program will look like. 

But what we do on the technology side is we work alongside 

them as they determine what they want to bring in, what will be 

digitally collected, which is born digital, will be digitized, and then 

how we’ll be storing it, whether it will be in long-term storage, how 

things will be presented to the public. 

Senator SCHATZ. So, in the interest of time, I’d actually like to 

maybe put these questions in the record—— 

Ms. SCHEFFLER. That would be fine. 

Senator SCHATZ [continuing]. And have you get back to me on 

the details. But here’s sort of a more basic question. 

How far along, how mature are your processes and procedures? 

How mature are you in your hiring? I mean, are you all set and 

now you have to fund it and execute, or are you sort of boarding 

a moving train at this point? 

STAFFING THE DIGITAL COLLECTION

Ms. SCHEFFLER. I would never say we’re boarding a moving 

train. However, I would say that there is an upside to maturity and 

that we have been doing this for a number of years. We’ve learned 

a lot from what we have done. We know what we have to do to proceed to the future. 

Senator SCHATZ. Okay, thank you. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Mark may be able to provide an answer on this. 

Senator SCHATZ. Sure, go ahead, and then we’ll move on to the 

next question. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you. 

Mr. SWEENEY. I think the heart of your question speaks to why 

we proposed the Digital Collection Center and the number of staff 

for that. We do have some experience with acquiring already born 

digital content, but we know that we have to scale that, and the 

expertise that is needed is both curatorial, identifying what is of 

value in digital and bring it in, but also requires skills that are 

unique to managing that content both from the moment it arrives 

at our institution, adding metadata to it, having preservation plans 

for it, and eventually making it accessible. So it’s really the whole 

life-cycle of it. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

COPYRIGHT OFFICE WITHIN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Dr. Billington, I have a question for you about the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress. This was based on the Library’s need to build its collection by acquiring one copy for each 

registered work. So it made sense at the time for the two entities, 

the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress, to operate under 

one roof. 

My view is that the reality has changed, and now the Copyright 

Office has a staff of more than 400 who are responsible for processing nearly half-a-million copyright registrations each year, 
120 

maintaining the national copyright recordation system, and administering all of our copyright laws. 

The work of the Copyright Office is vital to the Congress, the judicial system, copyright-related industries, international trade and 

the global marketplace. I’m worried that the Copyright Office may 

be out-growing its home within the Library of Congress and that 

it may no longer be the right fit. As we deliberate—and this isn’t 

a decision that we would undertake precipitously, but I wanted to 

put this question on the table because I think that we need to reevaluate whether this fit which had a specific rationale a long time 

ago makes sense anymore. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, as I said in my introductory statement, 

there are many questions about how copyright will function in the 

future. I think it’s extremely important to remember that before 

1870–1871, when the Congress decided to put Copyright inside, to 

function within the Library of Congress, that nothing copyrighted 

was preserved at all. So the question of determining what is important to have as permanently preserved and ultimately part of the 

national memory and the national collection was a basic reason for 

bringing it into the Library in the first place. 

Now, of course, things have changed. The problems have multiplied. We’ve requested 25 new FTEs, exactly what the Register requested for this year to address operational requirements. 

I think the most important thing to consider in the future, in 

how you modernize the Copyright Office from the point of view of 

the national collection, is that the record of the private-sector intellectual and cultural creativity, innovation and creativity has to be 

preserved for the future. 

Senator SCHATZ. Well, I agree. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Prior to 1870, deposits were kept for the purpose of enforcing the copyright laws; the preservation of these 

records was not a consideration. So this is an important Library 

consideration that is very central because it’s one of the two things 

that we are unique custodians of for the rapidly changing future: 

the world’s knowledge and America’s intellectual and cultural copyright activity, which would not be priorities of the Patent Office or 

other places that might be considered an appropriate location. 

I’ll let the Register speak to this issue, Maria Pallante, our Register of Copyrights. 

RESOURCES AND ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATION OF COPYRIGHT

Ms. PALLANTE. I appreciate the question very much, Ranking 

Member Schatz. I think, as Dr. Billington said, there have been a 

lot of long-term synergies between the Copyright Office and the Library. But as you stated, ultimately today they need to focus on acquisition preservation and making use of scholarly materials. For 

a variety of reasons, we need to focus on serving e-commerce, and 

we administer a Federal law that protects intellectual property 

rights. 

The reason that I think the tensions are becoming more apparent, or the challenges, to use a better word, is because of resources. 

So before, for example, I can ask you for capital funds to bring recordation online. Because it’s still paper, I think the question is how 

do we make that investment. Do we do it in the current Library 
121 

infrastructure for IT, or do we begin to make investments in a 

more strategic, targeted way? And that’s without getting into some 

of the constitutional issues and other things that are pending before the Judiciary about the relationship. But there certainly are 

still some synergies. 

COPYRIGHT—LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SYNERGIES

Senator SCHATZ. Can you give me an example of some of the 

synergies? I’m wondering if there are economies of scale operationally? Because it doesn’t seem to me that you’re actually operating 

together. 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think there were, but we’re subordinate to the 

Library in terms of the organization. 

Senator SCHATZ. So what are the synergies? 

Ms. PALLANTE. The synergies are that to the extent we continue 

to request materials for the purpose of examining them for legal 

protection and preserving them for litigation, it’s certainly possible 

that the Library could continue to be the repository for those materials. 

What we’re finding, though, is that that has to be done according 

to a very careful regulatory scheme that can’t simply just be made 

available to the public as though they’re part of the Library’s regular collection because people have given them to us because they 

want to protect their rights, not re-publish the work. Those are not 

things that I think we can’t solve. 

The bigger question, though, is if we’re going to re-think registration, period, do we need those kinds of preservation-quality deposits. That has to be aired publicly and carefully and can’t just be an 

agency decision. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, and thanks, Chair Capito, for your 

indulgence. I’m done with the Library of Congress. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one question 

for Dr. Billington. 

CAIRO, EGYPT OVERSEAS OFFICE

Some years ago, on a trip to the Middle East, I had the opportunity to visit a Library of Congress facility in Cairo and was really 

blown away by the scope and the reach of a very small staff there. 

And it strikes me now more than ever that those efforts to collect 

information—pamphlets, propaganda, whatever it may be—that 

aren’t published traditionally are more important to the United 

States now than ever. 

I, frankly, have not followed the progress of that work being done 

in and around the Middle East region, but I just would love to 

know whether the budget cuts that you’ve sustained over the 

course of years have affected that operation and what the plans 

and prospects are for that international effort, especially in that 

very volatile region, to collect information and publications that are 

not coming to you through other means, what the future of that 

looks like. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, we’ve had to pay more to maintain these 

offices. They’re more expensive. We’ve had to pay rent and different 

carrying costs to the State Department and others. It is extremely 
122 

important that we maintain our overseas operations because they 

are the only means of acquiring and preserving a multitude of 

unique collection materials. If we’re not going to be the repository, 

in effect, for the mandatory receipt of copyrighted materials for 

permanent retention as part of the national memory of American 

creativity, we will be in trouble. But we’ll also be in trouble if we 

don’t continue these overseas collections for the knowledge of the 

world. 

For instance, our Cairo office does remarkable things. All of 

these overseas offices travel widely. They have enormous knowledge of foreign languages, which is extremely important because 

more and more places are popping up with material that nobody 

else could decipher. We have somebody in our Cairo office, for instance, who speaks all three languages of the Kurds. Most people 

don’t know that there’s even one language of the Kurds. These are 

not dialects. These are separate languages. We have preserved the 

entire Coptic liturgical music, the oldest that relates to Christian 

history. The Copts are an important part of the Egyptian population. That’s never been preserved before. It’s now the official language of the Coptic Church. 

There is so much information that is in danger of not surviving, 

of not being part of the national memory. We’re a part of the national memory and we’re part of the world’s knowledge. There’s 

nothing equal to it. If we were to lose copyrighted knowledge or be 

dependent on some future arrangement that may not happen, you 

go back to the situation before 1870 when none of the copyrighted 

record was preserved. 

If our overseas offices don’t function, we’ll cease to be a place on 

the world’s frontiers for preserving things that may be destroyed 

by extremists or terrorists or just fires that are never put out or 

water damage that’s never repaired, which we are the best in the 

world at. 

SUSTAINING THE OLDEST FEDERAL CULTURAL INSTITUTION

This is a unique, one-of-a-kind American institution that the 

Congress has created and sustained. It’s the oldest Federal cultural 

institution, and it is I think capable of being one of the most innovative if its collections and staff are not diminished. 

We have a tremendous new leadership team. We’ve had a yearlong futures process that I have personally conducted with staff 

below this level. So from bottom-up and top-down, we offer you not 

something that we’ve created but something that Congress originated, created. But once it starts declining, once you miss 1 year, 

you double the problem in the following year, and the decline will 

be irreversible. 

I think we ought to hear a word from Robert Newlen who is my 

chief of staff, in conclusion so it’s not just the old professor going 

on for 15 minutes. 

So, Robert Newlen and David Mao can just wrap things up very 

quickly for you and supplement my passion with a little more 

youthful vigor and energy. 

Mr. NEWLEN. Mr. Murphy, just to follow up on Dr. Billington’s 

question about budget impact on our foreign office, one area of concern is the annual assessment that we have from the State Depart-
123 

ment for security for our facilities, many of which are located in 

American embassies. It’s a very complex formula to determine our 

assessment. But this year I believe it ran in the neighborhood of 

over $2.5 million, and we anticipate that it will continue to grow 

in the future. 

But thank you for your comments about those offices. They are 

absolutely critical to our future acquisition policy. We are able to 

accumulate materials that we routinely use to service the Congress, so we continue to value them very much. 

Senator MURPHY. I would just make a final note which I think, 

Dr. Billington, you’re very right to note the fact that in many of 

these places you have regimes or entities, non-state actors, who are 

controlling large portions of territory that are in the business of destroying the historical record, destroying the cultural record. And 

when these communities and societies try to rebuild, if that record 

isn’t preserved, and we are the only ones that have the resources 

to preserve it, it makes reconciliation much more difficult. So I appreciate the work of your overseas offices and I appreciate your 

comments. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I think this concludes our first panel 

of this hearing and I want to thank Dr. Billington, Mr. Mao, Mr. 

Newlen, and all the others who came forward to give their expertise on the Library of Congress, for your time today. 

The hearing record will remain open for seven days so that senators may submit any statements and/or questions for the record 

to the subcommittee by close of business Tuesday, March 24, 2015. 

I would now like to ask Stephen Ayers, the Architect of the Capitol, to take a seat at the witness table for the second panel of the 

day. 

Thank you all. 

Are you ready, Mr. Ayers? 

I’d like to welcome the Honorable Stephen T. Ayers, the Architect 

of the Capitol, and the talented and dedicated members of his senior staff: Christine Merdon, who is the Chief Operating Officer; 

Tom Carroll, Chief Financial Officer; and Mamie Bittner, who has 

just joined the Architect’s team this past December as the new Director of Communications and Congressional Relations. 

I understand that there are several superintendents of daily operations and maintenance of many of the buildings within the jurisdiction, that many of them are here today. So I want to thank 

you for your dedication and public service. I admire it every day. 

I feel honored and privileged to be working here in what is, I always say, the largest symbol of our freedom, the United States 

Capitol and associated buildings. It’s a magnificent place, and we 

want to keep it that way, as you do too. 

So briefly, the budget is an increase of $61.5, or about 10 percent, and I realize that there is a deferred maintenance backlog of 

about $1.4 billion, and you’ve had some very tough decisions that 

you’ve had to make. But it is an increase of 10 percent, and if you 

heard me with Dr. Billington, I basically posited that it’s highly 

probable that we’ll be faced with a flat budget for 2016 and be unable to make some tough decisions ahead of us. 

I noticed the theme of exterior envelope repair needs in this 

building or your request, including significant roof and stone dete-
124 

rioration on several buildings. I thank you for the tour so we could 

see up close and personal, particularly in the Russell Building, 

Hart, and the Capitol itself. 

One of the questions I’m going to be asking later is how do we 

prevent that from accumulating to such great degrees in the future? Do we need more maintenance, more cleaning, different materials? We can get into that later. 

So now, for an opening statement, I’d like to turn to my ranking 

member, Senator Schatz, for any opening comments he may make. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chair Capito. I’m ready to hear 

from Mr. Ayers. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Ayers, I’d like to ask you to give a brief 

opening statement of approximately 5 minutes. The written testimony you submitted will be printed in full as part of the hearing 

record. 
(125) 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

CHRISTINE MERDON, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 

TOM CARROLL, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

MAMIE BITTNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS AND CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Capito, 

Senator Schatz and members of the subcommittee. I’m delighted to 

be with you today, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

I’m pleased to present the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) fiscal 

year 2016 budget. Our incredibly talented team of professionals has 

worked diligently to prioritize the challenges we face as our magnificent Capitol campus continues to age. 

Thanks to the outstanding support from you, we’re hard at work 

at delivering our common mission of stewardship for the buildings 

and grounds of Capitol Hill. The start of the Dome Restoration 

Project in the fall of 2014 is a prime example of how we have 

worked together to reinvest the necessary resources on a project 

that will protect America’s inspiring Capitol. I’m pleased to report 

today that we’re nearly halfway through the exterior Dome restoration work. We currently anticipate completion of the exterior restoration this time next year. 

However, beyond the Capitol Dome, enormous challenges remain. 

From falling stone to aging infrastructure, coupled with safety and 

operational issues, the problems of Capitol Hill are continuing to 

get worse over time. This year’s budget request addresses several 

critical projects across the Capitol campus, and I would like to 

highlight a few of them now for you. 

First, we continue to address the systemic problem of stone deterioration across the campus. To this end, we are seeking support 

for the third phase of the five-phase Russell Senate Office Building 

Exterior Envelope Repair and Restoration project. This will make 

repairs to the west fac ̧ade of the 105-year-old office building. Rehabilitating the Russell Building exterior will significantly reduce the 

risk of falling stone and will result in increased energy savings 

with the maintenance of the doors and windows. 

Another project that I think is critical to our success is the next 

phase of the West Refrigeration Plant Chiller System Replacement 

at the Capitol Power Plant. This project will replace two old, inefficient chillers and chilled water pumps that date back to the 1970s, 

with a new chiller and other essential equipment. 

The Capitol Power Plant plays an essential role in the Architect 

of the Capitol’s (AOC) long-term energy conservation and cost reduction efforts. The existing chillers were installed in the 1970s 

and are far beyond their useful life expectancy. 
126 

Lastly, we are seeking your support to fund the first of three 

phases of the Senate Underground Garage Restoration and Landscape Restoration project. Constructed in 1932, the Senate Underground Garage, plazas and fountains continue to deteriorate and 

are in need of renovation and restoration. The project will also improve the Senate fountain’s water efficiency and save future maintenance costs. 

These projects, among others highlighted in our budget request, 

are indicative of the critical nature of the work necessary to maintain the Capitol campus. Every day when I walk around Capitol 

Hill I’m reminded that the AOC’s work directly affects members of 

Congress, your staff and visitors, and allows you to conduct the important work of government. Rest assured that the proud men and 

women of the AOC are your partners and we will continue to work 

around the clock and dedicate ourselves to our mission, no matter 

the challenges that lie ahead. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS

Chairman Capito, Senator Schatz, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today regarding the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) 

fiscal year 2016 budget request. 

With the support of Congress, the AOC is a strong steward of the buildings and 

grounds that comprise Capitol Hill. The incredibly talented and skillful employees 

of the agency care for facilities that are decades and even centuries old—buildings 

that were constructed without the modern equipment and efficiencies we now take 

for granted. 

Safety canopy over the Rotunda in support of the Capitol Dome 

Restoration. 
127 

In service to the U.S. Senate, the AOC achieved a number of major accomplishments in the past year. This work included moving 15 committee offices and 7 Senator’s offices as required by the majority transition. We also began work on the Hart 

Senate Office Building roof and skylights replacement, including an ongoing structural analysis of the Calder Clouds Mobile. We made critical life-safety systems upgrades to the historic Russell Senate Office Building Rotunda that also preserves 

its ornate features. 

Recognizing that AOC employees are among our most important assets, we continue to make investments to empower them. In 2014, we held more than 30 town 

halls, sharing critical information and soliciting feedback from our staff. In addition, 

we conducted an organizational assessment survey and are pleased that more than 

80 percent of AOC employees participated. Based on this feedback, AOC was ranked 

8th out of 25 mid-sized Federal agencies by the Partnership for Public Service’s Best 

Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings. 

AOC is also working to strengthen our supervisors. We have launched a ‘‘Supervisory Academy,’’ a week of intense supervision, management and leadership theory 

and skills development to help our supervisors become extraordinary leaders. Beyond our supervisors, we have launched two programs to encourage our staff to further improve their abilities. This includes the Architect’s Mobility Program that allows employees who lack qualifying experience to move into positions where they 

can gain a specialized skill set, enabling them to progress according to their abilities. And our Exchange of Critical Expertise and Learning (ExCEL) program serves 

to improve organizational productivity, enhance strategic efficiencies and increase 

employee knowledge. 

As strong as our employees are, our buildings are in need of additional help. Materials like stone, cast iron and bronze are key elements that provide the character 

and charm that thousands of Members of Congress, their staff and visitors have enjoyed throughout our Nation’s history. Yet even these robust materials degrade over 

time. The maintenance needs of the Capitol campus continue to grow every year, 

allowing small problems to become major life-safety and infrastructure problems requiring significant investments and resources to remedy. 

Taking into account the emerging priorities and looming urgent repairs for fiscal 

year 2016, we are requesting $661.8 million—a decrease of 2.2 percent from our fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

To address capital projects categorized as urgent or immediate, we are requesting 

$144.5 million. This is a $12 million or 7.7 percent decrease from our fiscal year 

2015 request, leaving $182.9 million of deferred maintenance work to be requested 

in future fiscal years. We recognize that not every project can be funded at the same 

time, and the deferred work will continue to be added to future funding requests. 

While we work to mitigate the risk of major failure by carefully monitoring and 

maintaining the facilities and systems, we know that delaying critical projects will 

inevitably result in increased fiscal demands on future budgets. 

Ongoing budget constraints mean we must carefully weigh competing demands 

and use our expertise to recommend investments in the most critical projects. Our 

Project Prioritization Process ranks every project based on its importance and urgency so that we can effectively recommend to Congress the investments most needed to ensure the Capitol campus remains safe, functional and protected for all who 

work and visit the buildings and grounds. 

AGING BUILDINGS REQUIRE CRITICAL INVESTMENT

Viewed from a distance, the buildings of Capitol Hill are inspiring and impressive, 

but up close, the buildings are more distressing than impressive, as weather, age 

and deferred maintenance are destroying many of the finer details of these awe-inspiring stone edifices. 
128 

Deteriorating stone on the Russell Senate Office Building exterior. 

When stone is properly maintained, it is one of the world’s most enduring materials; but when exterior stone deteriorates, major problems such as water infiltration, rusting of steel structures, mold and energy loss can occur within the building. 

While our dedicated employees perform the work necessary to maintain our buildings and grounds, they can only ensure the integrity of the materials when they are 

given adequate resources and support. Years of austere budgets have already resulted in the loss of many irreplaceable heritage assets. 

Stone preservation continues to emerge as one of our most important priorities. 

The condition of the exterior stone on most, if not all, of the buildings on Capitol 

Hill is rapidly deteriorating. The AOC’s historic preservationists, structural engineers and stonemasons are in a race against time as the infrastructure ages and 

deferred maintenance projects accumulate. 
129 

AOC stonemason makes repairs to the Olmsted Terrace Walls. 

Stonemasons from our Construction Division have been hard at work making repairs to the Olmsted Terrace—the first in more than a century. Designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in 1874, considered the founder of American landscape architecture, the terrace walls provide a strong visible base to the Capitol and a heightened 

sense of grandeur and scale. Unfortunately, the terrace conditions have deteriorated 

over time. But through the expertise of our Historic Preservation Officer and our 

stonemasons—funded from Capitol Construction and Operations—we are able to 

make the critical repairs needed to save these assets and restore the Olmsted Terrace to its former splendor. 

The longer these stone buildings are left to the destructive effects of time and the 

elements, the more the problems compound. Instances of cracking and spalling stone 

grow more serious and more costly to repair every year, and the temporary fixes 

the AOC undertakes to prevent catastrophic failures are not enough to prevent conditions from worsening. Investing in stonework projects will pay long-term dividends 

and preserve these historic buildings for decades to come. 

At the U.S. Capitol Building, an investment in the rehabilitation of the exterior 

stone will prolong the building’s life expectancy and preserve its historic features. 

The U.S. Capitol South Extension Exterior Stone and Metal Preservation work will 

include mortar replacement, fabrication and installation of Dutchman repairs, and 

stone cleaning. This work will help stem the water infiltration that has been destroying the existing historic fabric of the building. 
130 

Spalling stone on the U.S. Capitol Building. 

The third phase of the five-phase Russell Senate Office Building Exterior Envelope Repair and Restoration project will address the west fac ̧ade of the 105-yearold office building. The work will repair the fac ̧ade, windows and doors; repoint the 

masonry; restore and refinish the exterior metals and make structural repairs to the 

balustrades. Rehabilitating the Russell Building exterior will significantly reduce 

the risk of falling stone and will result in increased energy savings with the maintenance of the doors and windows. 

Stone sugaring on the Russell Senate Office Building balustrade. 

The Summerhouse, a favorite Capitol Grounds respite during the hot summer 

months, is rapidly deteriorating and requires intervention to restore the structure 

to its former grand condition. In particular, the terra cotta roof and bricks are crumbling, leading to an increase in life-safety issues, and the center fountain and grotto 

lack a recirculating water system, which is an inefficient use of resources. If the 
131 

Summerhouse Restoration project is completed, it will ensure that this Capitol 

Grounds treasure is preserved for generations. 

Olmsted’s Summerhouse is an American historic treasure. 

In future fiscal years, stone preservation will continue to be the AOC’s main focus, 

as nearly every building on Capitol Hill is built from stone and nearly all are in 

need of repair. Scaffolding already surrounds parts of the U.S. Capitol Building and 

will soon be visible around the Russell Senate Office Building and Cannon House 

Office Building as well. These critical stone restoration efforts will ensure that the 

work of Congress can continue for decades to come. 

CRITICAL PROJECTS

In our fiscal year 2016 budget request, we are requesting funding for projects that 

will ensure necessary investments are made in our historic infrastructure and increase the safety and security of those who work or visit Capitol Hill. Providing superior service to our customers and executing numerous large–scale and highly visible multi-year construction projects is a formidable challenge that we are addressing 

by managing risk and transparently communicating with Congress and the American public. 

AOC is responsible for meeting a wide range of fire, life safety, accessibility and 

performance standards, while also balancing operational needs and challenging 

working conditions that are unique to Capitol Hill and our aging buildings. In particular, we are focused on energy efficiency, addressing safety deficiencies and repairing crucial building infrastructure. 

The Capitol Power Plant (CPP) will continue to play an essential role in the 

AOC’s long-term energy conservation and cost reduction efforts. The CPP’s existing 

chillers, located in the West Refrigeration Plant (WRP), were installed in the 1970s 

and are rapidly approaching the end of their useful life expectancy. The risk of chiller failure increases as we continue to rely on this equipment to provide environmental control to the buildings on Capitol Hill. The next phase of the WRP Chiller 

System Replacement will replace two old, inefficient chillers and primary chilled 

water pumps with a new chiller, in addition to making other essential upgrades and 

repairs. The chiller replacement will reduce the Capitol Power Plant’s energy consumption, increasing efficiency and simultaneously providing a significant electrical 

cost savings. 
132 

Chiller reaching the end of its life expectancy. 

To mitigate Office of Compliance citations across the Capitol campus, we are requesting funding for the second phase of the Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson 

Building North Exit Stair B, which will address important egress deficiencies in the 

building. The AOC will construct a new self-supporting masonry exit stair in the 

northeast stacks that extends from the cellar to the top floor of the building, in addition to constructing new fire-rated exit passageways. The project will ensure that 

occupants of the Jefferson Building will be able to efficiently and rapidly exit the 

building during an emergency evacuation. 

Constructed in 1932, the Senate Underground Garage, plazas and fountains continue to deteriorate and are in need of renovation and restoration. Our request to 

fully fund the first of three phases of the Senate Underground Garage Renovations 

and Landscape Restoration will waterproof the upper and middle plaza fountains 

and surrounding stonework, restore the walkways and waterproof part of the garage 

ramp. The project will improve both of the fountain’s water efficiency and save future maintenance costs for stonework repair. 

Deteriorated Senate Underground Garage. 
133 

The longer these projects are delayed, the more the conditions of the buildings 

will decline. Proper investment is needed to ensure the historic fabric of these buildings is not lost to the ravages of time. 

CONCLUSION

Chairman Capito, Senator Schatz and members of the subcommittee, funding our 

recommended capital projects in fiscal year 2016 ensures that necessary investments are made in our aged infrastructure, and maintains the unique and historic 

buildings that serve Congress and the American people. 

We appreciate the previous investments, support and trust Congress has placed 

in us to address critical construction projects across the Capitol campus. The investments made in the AOC have enabled us to preserve history and ensure Congress 

can accomplish its daily functions. 

The buildings of the Capitol campus are well cared for by the dedicated men and 

women of the AOC who use their incredible talents and skills to maintain the buildings and grounds. Day after day, our employees deliver inspiring and professional 

service to our customers. Each employee’s contribution is vital to our success as an 

organization. 

There is much work to be done, but we believe that there is no greater mission 

than upholding the historic buildings entrusted to our care. The American people 

and future generations are counting on us to work together to invest the necessary 

resources to sustain the treasures of Capitol Hill. 
134 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL POSTER BOARDS 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 

U.S. CAPITOL DOME RESTORATION

Senator CAPITO. I want to thank you, and I’ll go right to questioning. 

The Dome, obviously, is the most prominent demonstration of the 

work of the Architect of the Capitol, the rehabilitation work which 

you toured for us, probably on the coldest day of the year. Thank 

you very much for that. 

I understand you mentioned that it is on budget and on schedule. 

I’d just like a reaffirmation of that because obviously I have concern about the inauguration of 2016. Do you have full confidence 

that you’ll have this completed in time for that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, I do. This is a three-phase project. We’re executing the exterior now, and we expect that to be finished this time 

next year. So that’s well in advance of the 2017 presidential inauguration. And the final two phases, the interstitial space and the 

Rotunda space, are both awarded, and work and planning is well 

under way. We’re pretty confident that we’ll make that date. 

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

Senator CAPITO. Good, that’s good news. 

On your request, you have line-item construction projects in priority order. I noticed that you mentioned Phase 3 of the Russell 

Building exterior envelope. We also looked at that as well and concur that it’s in need of restoration and repair. 

But as we’re looking through the budget, if we flat fund you, 

we’re not even going to get to that project. Do you anticipate that 

you will be reconfiguring some of your top projects or phases? The 
143 

$29 million for the West Refrigeration Plant, is that the final phase 

of that project? 

Mr. AYERS. It is not the final phase. I think the total expenditure 

on that program is about $180 million. 

Senator CAPITO. Wow. 

Mr. AYERS. We’ve already broken it down into about six phases. 

I think there’s potential that we can certainly work with the subcommittee to move those projects up and down the priority list as 

funding is available, and we’re well poised to work with the subcommittee to do that. 

It’s interesting, as I look through that list, nearly all of them are 

immediate priorities. The difference in priorities is rather small between them, and moving one above the other will have fairly low 

consequences. We would welcome the opportunity to do that. 

STONE DETERIORATION

Senator CAPITO. What about the question I asked in my opening 

statement in terms of the large projects, and you mentioned in your 

opening statement the deterioration of the Capitol Plant in and of 

itself. Do you have a side part of your vast responsibilities where 

you’re looking at ways to do better maintenance or prevent the 

grand deterioration? When we looked out at the park over by the 

Russell Building, I think it was mentioned that these stones had 

been moving for decades, and I know you tried to address them, 

but couldn’t address them. 

What do you say about that? Because certainly that would help 

with cost issues. 

Mr. AYERS. First let me show you an image or two of the stone 

restoration. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. 

Mr. AYERS. I think you have some photographs at the dais, and 

let me just refer you to images 1, 2, 3 and 4. Image 1 is a great 

example of stone deterioration. This comes from water, and you can 

see the base of the wall that has pulled away from its structural 

system, and the severe deterioration at the bottom. 

Similarly, if you look at photographs 1, 2, 3 and 4, you’ll see very 

similar deterioration there. 

To answer your question, the work that we do and our maintenance is not out of the ordinary. I think it’s in line with industry 

best practices. 

What’s different is we are managing historic buildings that are 

100 to well over 200 years old, and we are dealing with the materials and methods of construction from that time. Keeping those 

buildings maintained is the issue that causes us the most difficulty. 

Take stone, for example. We are using the latest technology. 

Thirty or forty years ago, cleaning stone would have been done 

with high-pressure power washers or sand blasting, and today 

we’re doing that with water misting and the newest technology of 

hand-held laser cleaning of stone that is making incredible efficiencies in our projects, and costs as well. 

We are abreast of the latest technologies and are using those in 

the work that we do today. 
144 

UNION SQUARE AND GRANT MEMORIAL CONSERVATION

Senator CAPITO. My last question will be about the Union Square 

and Grant Memorial conservation. My understanding was that in 

the 2012 budget you took over the responsibilities for Union Square 

and the Grant Memorial conservation without really any additional 

funding provided to you. 

It is a beautiful area as you’re walking down from the Capitol, 

a lot of visitors walk through there. I understand you’re going to 

be refurbishing the Grant Statue and all of the walkways and the 

pumping system for the Reflecting Pool there. 

How are you putting this into your budget, and what do you see 

for that area of the Capitol? 

Mr. AYERS. What an important space that is for this grand city 

of Washington, DC, and what an important memorial to Grant this 

is. It is in a significant state of disrepair, and we were delighted 

that the Congress acquired that property, and we are working hard 

to be good stewards. 

I have another image or two, if I may, of that. If you can look 

at image 5 and 6, a great example is image 6. This is the current 

state of that statue. You can see the military officer here with his 

hand raised in victory with his sword, only that the sword is missing, and this is just one of probably 100 pieces of the statue that 

have been removed and deteriorated. 

Similarly, you see the deteriorating condition of the bronze statue and the staining of the marble of this stone, and we’re eager to 

undertake that work and get it looking the way it should be looking. 

The first thing that we’ve done at Union Square is to stabilize 

it and make it safe by removing the tripping hazards and making 

sure people can safely traverse through Union Square. We have expended about $1 million doing that work. Secondly, we’ve spent or will spend about $1 million in the short 

term conserving the bronze, conserving the marble, and getting 

this piece of important statuary collection back to the way it should 

be. 

Thirdly, we have undertaken a series of studies to help us understand the cultural importance of this piece of property and what 

needs to be done long term to the infrastructure. When we acquired 

the property, the pumping room was completely submerged in 

nearly 10 feet of water and had been that way for a very, very long 

time. We’ve now drained it and are beginning to understand what 

needs to happen to get this Reflecting Pool functioning the way it 

needs to function. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator Schatz. 

Senator SCHATZ. Senator Murphy. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator Murphy. 

Senator MURPHY. I’m going to leap over Senator Schatz. I just 

have one quick question, so I appreciate Senator Schatz allowing 

me to ask it. 

HART ATRIUM AND CALDER SCULPTURE

Thank you for the work that’s going on right now in the Hart 

Atrium regarding a structural assessment of the Calder Statue. 
145 

Calder is a Connecticut-based sculptor, someone that we’re very 

proud to be associated with. Of course, that statue has not been operating according to Calder’s wishes for some time. I know that 

this is going to be a lengthy analysis because you’re looking at 

whether there is the structural ability to re-mechanize the clouds 

portion of the statue while also just trying to understand whether 

it’s financially feasible as well. I was able to take a quick tour of 

the work, and I think there’s great progress being made. But I’d 

love an update on that analysis as it stands today. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Senator. We are certainly concerned 

about that. The roof of the Hart Building and the skylights were 

leaking significantly, and we came to the Congress seeking money 

to replace the roof and replace a significant number of skylights. 

As part of that project, we had to scaffold the Atrium. It presented 

a wonderful opportunity to analyze the Calder sculpture and understand why the clouds haven’t been rotating since 1992, I think 

it was. We’re in the process of doing that analysis. 

You may have seen a notice we’ve sent out to member offices just 

within the last few days that we’re about to undertake the x-ray 

portion of that analysis. We will be looking very carefully at all of 

the welded joints in the clouds themselves and the connecting devices of the clouds to see if there are cracks and understand the 

depth of the welds. That process will happen over a number of 

weekends over the course of the next several weeks. 

We expect to have that report this summer and come back to the 

Congress with our recommendation on how we should proceed with 

getting it repaired and whether or not it can continue to spin and 

function as it was originally intended to. 

Senator MURPHY. Well, we have about three feet of snow on the 

ground in Connecticut, so we’ve seen a lot of clouds over the course 

of the last few months. It’s nice to see occasional cloudless skies, 

but we’re hopeful to have that structure back up and operating as 

it was originally intended to. 

Thank you, Senator Schatz, for allowing me to jump in. 

Senator CAPITO. Senator Schatz. 

CONTRACT OVERSIGHT

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chair Capito. 

I have a few questions, Mr. Ayers. 

I know the Architect relies on contractors for a number of your 

major construction contracts, and I think that makes sense, especially when you lack the specialized expertise. I’m interested in 

how you do your contract oversight, and I’m particularly focused in 

on whether you’re following GAO’s best practices for contract oversight. 

Mr. AYERS. To answer the second question first, we believe that 

we are. We had a recent GAO audit of our cost estimating and risk 

assessment practices within the last year, and we are following 

those practices and have done five cost and risk assessments on 

our major capital projects, and all of them seem to be in line with 

our expectations. We are achieving an 80 percent confidence rate, 

both in cost and schedule, and in many of our projects we are exceeding that 80 percent confidence rate in both cost and schedule. 

So we think we’re following the best practices. 
146 

Secondly, we take a very comprehensive approach to contract 

management. We treat our contractors as our partners. Our success and the success of the Congress in these endeavors are related 

to the success of our contractors. We partner with them and perform rigorous oversight of our contractors. We are engaged with 

them at so many different levels, starting with a contracting officer 

and a contracting officer’s technical representative, a project executive, a project manager, a project inspector, a construction manager, and on down the line. 

A great example of that is we recently had about 15 of our construction managers certified as certified construction managers 

through the Construction Management Association of America. So 

making sure the folks that are on the ground working with contractors are the best they can be is important to us, and we’re investing in that. 

Senator SCHATZ. Are you adhering to your existing internal policies and standards? Is this an improvement that you’ve made over 

the last couple of years? 

Mr. AYERS. It’s only been in recent years that we’ve actually captured our project management practices in a written manual. All 

of those procedures, just within the last 5 years, have been written 

and codified both in a manual and guidance and policy that I’ve 

signed and directed all of the members of our organization to follow 

these procedures as we perform contractor oversight. 

PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST

Senator SCHATZ. Speaking of contract management, Chair Capito 

asked about the Capitol Dome restoration being finished before inauguration, made reference to the Grant Statue in Union Square, 

and also the exterior stone work I believe. Can you just confirm for 

the subcommittee that all of those projects and any other projects 

will be completed before the inauguration? 

Mr. AYERS. I’d be happy to, and I can confirm that. Every member of this organization understands how important the presidential inauguration is and knows that we are front and center on 

every television screen across the world on that day. 

Senator SCHATZ. And who bears the cost if something unforeseen 

happens? Let’s say you had to take down scaffolding to conduct the 

inauguration and then re-start one of those projects. Would it depend on the reason for the delay and the way the contract is written, or is there some way this goes every time? 

Mr. AYERS. I think all of those things are situationally dependent. If it’s some force majeure, then we have to pay for that. If it’s 

delayed because of the contractor’s fault, then we would insist that 

the contractor pay for that. 

The scaffolding and everything else is going to come down by the 

time the presidential inauguration happens, and we will ensure 

that the West Front and the East Front of the Capitol look terrific. 

FORT MEADE

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. And my final question on the Fort 

Meade acquisition, my understanding is that there is 100 acres, the 

total number of acres, and then there’s seven acres or so that were 

part of an old railroad owned by the State of Maryland. Have you 
147 

made your arrangement with the State of Maryland, gotten your 

easements, and is there any thought given to not acquiring that 

last seven acres because of the potential environmental mitigation 

that may be required and the cost associated with it? 

Mr. AYERS. We did submit legislative language in our budget request, and the purpose of that is to allow us to begin negotiating 

with the State of Maryland to acquire that piece of property. I 

think all of that will be determined in the negotiations. 

Today, what’s in front of us is the construction of Fort Meade 

Module 5, and we have negotiated and signed a Right of Entry 

with the State of Maryland allowing us to proceed with construction of Module 5. 

Senator SCHATZ. Module 5 is not on those seven acres. You just 

need an easement through the seven acres to do the construction? 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. We have to run utilities through the easement to feed Module 5. 

Senator SCHATZ. Okay. I would just ask you to stay nimble on 

this one because we’re obviously nowhere near having built out all 

93 acres, which are by all accounts free and clear. So it would be 

great to acquire those last seven acres. But if it proves to be difficult, as sometimes is the case with parcels of property that may 

have environmental requirements, I think we should all be prepared to just work with the first 93 acres and not get into a long 

and potentially expensive process, especially if it’s not necessary. 

So let’s all stay nimble on this. 

I don’t have a dog in that hunt, except that I don’t want to see 

you wasting your time, and I certainly don’t want to see us using 

taxpayer dollars to have to do environmental mitigation on land 

that we went out of our way to acquire. 

Mr. AYERS. I understand, and we certainly will. Thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Any further questions? 

Senator SCHATZ. No. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Ayers. I have no further questions. 

I want to thank the staff, too, of the Architect’s Office for your 

time here today. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

The hearing record will remain open for seven days, allowing 

members to submit statements and/or questions for the record, 

which will be sent to the subcommittee by close of business on 

Tuesday, March 24th, 2015. 

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

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

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ

BUILDING THE DIGITAL COLLECTION

Question. What is your long term vision on building the digital collection? 

Answer. The vision for digital collections at the Library of Congress is anchored 

in the Library’s mission to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties 

and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the Amer-
148 

ican people. It is also part of the larger vision that covers both analog and digital 

collections. The Library strives toward: 

—A universal collection of knowledge, unmatched in the world, analog and digital; 

—Routine and easy acquisition of analog and digital materials by deposit, purchase, gift, and exchange, in pursuit of serving our patrons in the present and 

preserving a national patrimony for the future; 

—Collections moving quickly to the hands and screens of on-site scholars and 

users of the public Web site; 

—Serving patrons and the public with the tools and skills needed to access and 

analyze digital collections; 

—A digital and analog collection that is universal, well organized, and easy to use, 

enabling authoritative research and analysis for Congress; and, 

—The Library of Congress continuing as a center of excellence in the practices 

of acquiring, describing, managing, preserving, and providing cultural heritage 

material and as a world leader in the handling of digital material. 

Question. How is that reflected in your budget? 

Answer. The Library has requested fiscal year 2016 funding of $2.005 million (15 

full-time equivalents (FTE)) to establish a Digital Collections Center, which will provide an essential increase in the institution’s capacity to ingest, process, manage, 

preserve, and provide access to digital material. As a centralized team, this operation will collaborate with technical staff elsewhere in the Library. It also will assist 

other staff members who work with digital collections, increase standardization of 

the work, engage underserved curatorial divisions, and provide training across the 

Library. 

Question. Who makes the judgments and what judgments are to be made about 

either what comes in digitally and then gets archived or what comes in in analog 

form and then gets digitized? 

Answer. In general, subject specialists make such judgments under a framework 

of existing policies. The Library has a set of more than 70 Collections Policy Statements and Supplementary Guidelines documents (see http://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/ 

cpsstate.html) that guide the institution’s acquisitions and selection operations for 

both analog and born digital materials. The policies provide a plan for developing 

the collections and maintaining their existing strengths. They set forth the scope, 

level of collecting intensity, and goals sought by the Library to fulfill its service mission. Proposals to digitize analog materials are prepared by specialists and submitted to the Digital Library Content Group (DLCG), a committee with Librarywide representation. Proposals are evaluated by the DLCG using these criteria: 

—Value to Congress 

—Scholarly research value 

—General audience interest 

—Educational value 

—Historical or cultural significance 

—Extent to which it fills in major gaps in subjects covered 

—Extent to which it augments/complements existing collections presented on the 

Library’s Web site 

—Extent to which it represents ‘‘star’’ materials in LC collections (top treasures, 

extraordinary items) 

—Extent to which it reduces wear and tear on fragile and/or valuable physical 

materials 

—Potential to engage new audiences 

—Relationship to a planned event 

—Relationship to a planned exhibit 

—Extent to which it provides an opportunity to collaborate with outside communities 

Question. Is there a growing field of specialized expertise in the curating of digital 

materials? 

Answer. Yes, specialized expertise is required on the technical side. The Library 

already has limited resident expertise in digital curation. The establishment of the 

Digital Collections Center will allow for an expansion of that expertise base in the 

Library and result in the ability to greatly expand our digital collecting program. 

Question. Are you all set to bring on this expertise, and now you just have to fund 

it and execute? 

Answer. The Library is prepared to expeditiously establish and staff the Digital 

Collections Center. 
149 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

This concludes the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee hearings regarding the budget request for fiscal year 

2016. 

The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., Tuesday, March 17, the hearings were 

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

(151) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

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

DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee did not hold formal hearings 

for the Government Publishing Office and the Office of Compliance. 

Following are the statements submitted by them:] 

GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVITA VANCE-COOKS, DIRECTOR

Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on Legislative Branch Appropriations, it is an honor to present the appropriations 

request of the Government Publishing Office (GPO) for fiscal year 2016. As background, my prepared statement provides an overview of GPO’s functions and operations. 

GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

The Government Publishing Office (GPO) is the OFFICIAL, DIGITAL, SECURE 

resource for producing, procuring, cataloging, indexing, authenticating, disseminating, and preserving the official information products of the Federal Government. 

Under Title 44 of the U.S. Code, GPO is responsible for the production and distribution of information products for all three branches of the Government, including the official publications of Congress and the White House, U.S. passports for the 

Department of State, and the official publications of other Federal agencies and the 

courts. Once primarily a printing operation, we are now an integrated publishing 

operation and carry out our mission using an expanding range of digital as well as 

conventional formats. Congress and the President recognized this change in our operations in the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–235), which contains a provision redesignating GPO’s official name 

as the Government Publishing Office. GPO currently employs about 1,700 workers. 

Along with sales of publications in digital and tangible formats to the public, GPO 

supports openness and transparency in Government by providing permanent public 

access to Federal Government information at no charge through our Federal Digital 

System (FDsys, at www.fdsys.gov), which today makes more than 1 million Federal 

titles available online from both GPO and links to servers in other agencies. In fiscal year 2014 FDsys averaged 38.1 million retrievals per month, with a spike up 

to 47.5 million during the Government shutdown of October 2013. We also provide 

public access to Government information through partnerships with approximately 

1,200 libraries nationwide participating in the Federal Depository Library Program. 

In addition to GPO’s Web site, www.gpo.gov, we communicate with the public routinely via Facebook http://www.facebook.com/USGPO, Twitter twitter.com/USGPO, 

YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/gpoprinter, and Pinterest http://pinterest.com 

/usgpo/. 

History 

From the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence and the papers 

leading to the creation and ratification of the Constitution, America is a nation 

based on documents, and our governmental tradition since then has reflected that 
152 

fact. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that ‘‘each House shall keep 

a journal of its proceedings and from time to time publish the same.’’ After years 

of struggling with various systems of contracting for printed documents that were 

beset with scandal and corruption, in 1860 Congress created the Government Printing Office as its official printer. GPO first opened its doors for business on March 

4, 1861, the same day Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th President. 

Since that time, GPO has produced and distributed the official version of every 

great American state paper and an uncounted number of other Government publications, documents, and forms. These documents include the Emancipation Proclamation, the legislative publications and acts of Congress, Social Security cards, Medicare and Medicaid information, census forms, tax forms, citizenship forms, passports, military histories ranging from the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion to the latest accounts of our forces in Afghanistan, the 9/11 Commission Report, 

Presidential inaugural addresses, and Supreme Court opinions. This work goes on 

today, in both digital as well as print forms. 

Strategic Vision and Plan 

GPO is transforming from a print-centric to a content-centric publishing operation. In fiscal year 2016 and the years ahead, GPO will continue to develop an integrated, diversified product and services portfolio that focuses primarily on digital. 

Although industry experts predict tangible print will continue to be required because of official use, archival purposes, authenticity, specific industry requirements, 

and segments of the population that either have limited or no access to digital formats, we recognize that the volume of tangible print that is requisitioned from GPO 

is declining and will continue to decline. 

GPO’s strategic plan, which is available for public review at http://www.gpo.gov/ 

about/, is built around four goals: satisfying our stakeholders, offering products and 

services, strengthening our organizational foundation, and engaging our workforce. 

The plan provides the blueprint for how GPO will continue to achieve its mission 

of Keeping America Informed with an emphasis on being OFFICIAL, DIGITAL, SECURE. GPO’s senior managers convene at the beginning of the fiscal year to review 

the plan and approve it before it is issued. 

Technology Transformation 

GPO has continually transformed itself throughout its history by adapting to 

changing technologies. In the ink-on-paper era, this meant moving from hand-set to 

machine typesetting, from slower to high-speed presses, and from hand to automated bookbinding. These changes were significant for their time. 

Yet they pale by comparison with the transformation that accompanied our incorporation of electronic information technologies, which began over 50 years ago in 

1962 when the Joint Committee on Printing directed the agency to develop a new 

system of computer-based composition. That order led to the development of GPO’s 

first electronic photocomposition system, which by the early 1980’s had completely 

supplanted machine-based hot metal typesetting. Following the enactment of the 

GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act in 1993, the databases generated by our composition system were uploaded to the Internet via GPO’s first Web 

site, GPO Access, vastly expanding the agency’s information dissemination capabilities. Those functions continue today with FDsys on a more complex and comprehensive scale. 

While transforming to an increasingly digital footing, GPO continues to provide 

an array of printing services to support the needs of Congress, Federal agencies, and 

the public. GPO is retooling its print operations to utilize a smaller, more flexible, 

more digitally-based equipment profile than previously. In fiscal year 2014 we took 

delivery of a new zero make-ready press to support congressional and Federal agency publishing requirements, which will replace two aging presses that have been in 

place since 1979. We are continually reviewing product and equipment options to 

ensure that our publishing activities are conducted with the most efficient, effective 

technologies available. 

As a result of these sweeping technology changes—digital products, equipment, 

and processes GPO is now fundamentally different from what it was as recently as 

a generation ago. It is smaller, leaner, and equipped with digital production capabilities that are the bedrock of the information systems relied upon daily by Congress, Federal agencies, and the public to ensure open and transparent Government 

in the digital era. As we prepare GPO for the Government information environment 

and technology challenges of the future, our transformation is continuing with the 

development of new ways of delivering Government information, including apps and 

bulk data download files. 
153 

GPO AND CONGRESS

For the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, and the committees of 

the House and the Senate, GPO publishes the documents and publications required 

by the legislative and oversight processes of Congress in digital and tangible formats. This includes the daily Congressional Record, bills, reports, legislative calendars, hearings, committee prints, and documents, as well as stationery, franked 

envelopes, memorials and condolence books, programs and invitations, phone books, 

and the other products needed to conduct the business of Congress. We also detail 

expert staff to support the publishing requirements of House and Senate committees 

and congressional offices such as the House and Senate Offices of Legislative Counsel. We work with Congress to ensure the provision of these services under any circumstances. 

Today the activities associated with creating congressional information databases 

comprise the majority of the work funded by our annual Congressional Publishing 

Appropriation (formerly known as the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation). Our advanced digital authentication system, supported by public key infrastructure (PKI), is an essential component for assuring the digital security of congressional publications. The databases we build are made available for providing access to congressional publications in digital formats as well as their production in 

tangible formats. 

GPO’s congressional information databases also form the building blocks of other 

information systems supporting Congress. For example, they are provided directly 

to the Library of Congress to support its Congress.gov system as well as the legislative information systems the Library makes available to House and Senate offices. 

We work with the Library to prepare summaries and status information for House 

and Senate bills in XML bulk data format. We are also collaborating with the Library on the digitization of historical printed documents, such as the Congressional 

Record, to make them more broadly available to Congress and the public. 

GPO Cuts the Cost of Congressional Work 

The use of electronic information technologies by GPO has been a principal contributor to lowering the cost, in real economic terms, of congressional information 

products. In fiscal year 1980, as we replaced hot metal typesetting with electronic 

photocomposition, the appropriation for Congressional Publishing was $91.6 million, 

the equivalent in today’s dollars of $263 million. By comparison, our approved funding for fiscal year 2015 is $79.7 million, a reduction of more than two-thirds in constant dollar terms. 

Productivity increases resulting from technology have enabled us to make substantial reductions in staffing requirements while continuing to improve services for 

Congress. In 1980, GPO employment was 6,450. Today, we have 1,695 employees 

on board, representing a reduction of 4,755, or more than 70 percent. This is the 

smallest GPO workforce of any time in the past century. 

Highlights of Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Work 

In fiscal year 2014, essential staff from GPO remained on duty during the Government shutdown in October 2013 to meet the publishing requirements of Congress 

throughout the shutdown period without any interruption or reduction in service. 

During the year, we published the Congressional Directory for the 113th Congress 

under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, and late in the year we released the New Member Pictorial Directory for the 114th Congress as prepared by 

the Committee on House Administration. We also worked with the Office of the 

Clerk of the House to prepare an eBook version of Hispanic Americans in Congress 

1822–2012. 

At the direction of the House Appropriations Committee, and in support of the 

House’s task force on bulk data, in 2014 we began work with the Library of Congress to make House bill status information prepared by the Congressional Research 

Service available in XML bulk data format. Late in the year our work in making 

legislative information available in XML bulk data format was expanded to include 

Senate bills, at the request of the Secretary of the Senate. 

GPO AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

Federal agencies are major generators of information in the United States, and 

GPO produces their information products for official use and public access. Federal 

agencies and the public also rely on a growing variety of secure credentials produced 

by GPO, including travelers holding U.S. passports, members of the public who 

cross our borders frequently, and other users. Our digital systems support key Federal agency publications, including the annual Budget of the U.S. Government and, 
154 

most importantly, the Federal Register and associated products. As it does for congressional documents, our digital authentication system, supported by public key infrastructure (PKI), assures the digital security of agency documents. GPO does not 

receive appropriations to produce work for Federal agencies. Instead, we provide 

products and services on a reimbursable basis. 

Highlights of Fiscal Year 2014 Agency Operations 

For the past 3 years we have made the Budget of the U.S. Government available 

as a mobile app. 

One of GPO’s major agency customers is the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), 

which produces the daily Federal Register and related publications such as the Code 

of Federal Regulations, and other key information products like the Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents and the Public Papers of the President. GPO produces these publications in both digital and tangible formats. 

Since 1926 GPO has been responsible for producing the U.S. passports for the Department of State. At one time, no more than a conventionally printed document, 

the U.S. passport since 2005 has incorporated a digital chip and antenna array capable of carrying biometric identification data. With other security printing features, 

this document—that we produce in Washington, DC, as well as a secure remote facility in Mississippi—is now the most secure identification credential obtainable. In 

fiscal year 2014, we made changes to our facilities to begin installing equipment 

that will be used to produce the next generation passport. 

Since 2008, we have served as an integrator of secure identification smart cards 

to support the credentialing requirements of Federal agencies and other Government entities. Our secure credential unit has been certified by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) as the only government-to-government provider of credentials 

meeting the requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD– 

12). 

We anticipated that the sequester implemented during fiscal year 2013 would impact funding for printing and other information products ordered through GPO. In 

response, we implemented increased controls on spending, reprioritized capital investment plans, and closely monitored costs. GPO was able to continue its support 

of Federal agency publishing and information product requirements without any 

interruption or reduction in service. During the October 2013 Government shutdown, GPO initially scaled back support of Federal agency requirements consistent 

with Office of Management and Budget and related requirements for a lapse in 

funding. However, as the shutdown continued and some agencies returned to business (such as the Department of Defense), GPO responded to their essential requirements. Additionally, GPO provided public access via FDsys to health and safety regulatory information issued by the Office of the Federal Register during the shutdown. 

During fiscal year 2014, GPO reported positive results on a customer satisfaction 

survey of approximately 500 Federal agencies. The survey focused on GPO’s products, services, and programs, the cost-effectiveness of services, and satisfaction with 

GPO’s Web site and customer service. Some of the results included: 

—91 percent of customers are satisfied with overall service from their primary 

GPO location 

—90 percent are likely to recommend GPO to a colleague 

—90 percent say they do not believe they can beat or match GPO pricing 

The survey was conducted in support of GPO’s Strategic Plan, that emphasizes 

a customer-centric approach through agency-wide procedures, policies, and activities 

implemented to ensure GPO is meeting customers’ needs and exceeding their expectations. 

Partnership With Industry 

Other than congressional and inherently governmental work such as the Federal 

Register, the Budget, and secure and intelligent documents, we produce virtually all 

other Federal agency information products via contracts with the private sector 

printing and information product industry issued by our central office and regional 

GPO offices around the country. In fiscal year 2014, this work amounted to approximately $289.3 million. Approximately 16,000 individual firms are registered to do 

business with GPO, the vast majority of whom are small businesses averaging 20 

employees per firm. Contracts are awarded on a purely competitive basis; there are 

no set-asides or preferences in contracting other than what is specified in law and 

regulation, including a requirement for Buy American. This partnership provides 

great economic opportunity for the private sector. 
155 

GPO AND OPEN, TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT

Producing and distributing the official publications and information products of 

the Government fulfills an informing role originally envisioned by the Founders, as 

James Madison once said: 

‘‘A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. 

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be 

their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.’’ 

GPO operates a variety of programs that provide the public with ‘‘the means of 

acquiring’’ Government information that Madison spoke of. These programs include 

the Federal Depository Library program (FDLP), Federal Digital System (FDsys), 

Publications Sales, and Social Media. 

Federal Depository Library Program 

The FDLP has legislative antecedents that date back 200 years, to 1813. Across 

those years, depository libraries have served as critical links between ‘‘We the People’’ and the information made available by the Federal Government. GPO provides 

the libraries with information products in digital and, in some cases, tangible formats, and the libraries in turn make these available to the public at no charge while 

providing additional help and assistance to depository library users. The program 

today serves millions of Americans through a network of approximately 1,200 public, academic, law, and other libraries located across the Nation, averaging nearly 

three per congressional district. Once limited to the distribution of printed and 

microfiche products, the FDLP today is primarily digital, supported by FDsys and 

other digital resources. This overwhelming reliance on digital content allowed for 

the first digital-only Federal depository library designation in fiscal year 2014, with 

others to follow. 

In fiscal year 2014, GPO completed work on our FDLP Forecast Study, a collaborative research project between GPO and depository libraries, that surveyed all depository libraries to assess the current conditions of the program. Primary issues 

identified in the survey include budget constraints, use of physical space, staffing, 

and collection scope changes. Results from this initiative will serve as a blueprint 

for developing a new National Plan for Access to Federal Government Information. 

Also supporting the Federal depository libraries and the public nationwide is the 

work GPO does under its statutory mandate to catalog a comprehensive index of 

public documents issued or published by the Federal Government that are not confidential in character. The public interface for accessing these cataloging records is 

GPO’s Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). In fiscal year 2014, there 

were 25.6 million successful searches of the CGP, an increase of 10.5 million over 

fiscal year 2013. Also during this period, more than 13,800 new cataloging records 

were added to the CGP, of which 60 percent contained direct online links to the cataloged content. Additionally, more than 150 free Federal Government eBooks from 

various agencies are now available via the CGP, with more being added continuously. Thanks to a partnership we forged with the Digital Public Library of America 

(DPLA), more than 150,000 records from GPO’s digital Catalog of Government Publications are now also available to the public through the DPLA’s Web site. 

Federal Digital System 

GPO has been providing access to digital congressional and Federal agency documents since 1994. Today, FDsys provides the majority of congressional and Federal 

agency content to the FDLP as well as other online users. This system has reduced 

the cost of providing public access to Government information significantly when 

compared with print, while expanding public access dramatically through the Internet. Public utilization of FDsys has increased substantially. In 2014, FYFDsys recorded its 1 billionth document retrieval since replacing our original online Web 

site, GPO Access. Currently, FDsys serves as a secure preservation repository for 

more than 1 million individual titles from all three branches of the Government, the 

only system of its kind in operation today. In fiscal year 2014, FDsys averaged 38.1 

million retrievals per month, with a spike of up to 47.5 million during the October 

2013 Government shutdown. 

GPO is continually adding collections to FDsys to provide increased public access 

to Government information. In fiscal year 2014, new collections were added ranging 

from audio books to digital editions of historic publications like the Warren Report 

on the assassination of President Kennedy and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the 

end of the year, we were one of 5 institutions named by the Library of Congress 

and the National Institute of Museum and Library Services to be part of the Na-
156 

tional Digital Stewardship Residency program, under which we are now preparing 

to become the first Federal agency certified as a Trustworthy Digital Depository for 

Government information. 

During the October 2013 Government shutdown, the FDsys congressional and regulatory information collections were continually updated as an essential function in 

order to provide public access to this essential information. The other collections on 

FDsys were not updated but were still accessible. All other information on gpo.gov 

(concerning our Online Bookstore, FDLP.gov, Contractor Connect, etc.) remained 

static during the shutdown. 

FDsys Improvements Planned for Fiscal Year 2016 

As GPO’s enterprise information management system for digital information dissemination and preservation, FDsys is a critical component of our integrated publishing operation. Continued investment in this cornerstone system is needed in 

order to ensure FDsys technology, features, and functionality supports GPO’s mission and meets the needs of key stakeholders, including Congress, Federal agencies, 

and the American public. 

In fiscal year 2016, the Next Generation FDsys public website (NextGen) will officially launch and the legacy site will be retired. NextGen functionality will greatly 

enhance the way stakeholders can interact with FDsys, including a responsive user 

interface, replacement of the current search engine with an Open Source search engine, the implementation of linking between related publications, and user interface 

improvements based on extensive stakeholder engagement. 

Along with the launch of NextGen, other initiatives are crucial for managing Federal Government content in FDsys, including developing new content collections, increasing content in existing collections, enhancing the accessibility of content, and 

increasing the discoverability of information within the system. GPO also has begun 

the initial process to seek certification for FDsys as a Trustworthy Digital Repository in compliance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 

16363). This certification will validate that FDsys, its infrastructure, and its supporting organization are reliable and sustainable, in order to ensure the highest 

level of service now and into the future. 

With the planned updates to the FDsys search, content management, and preservation components and along with certification of FDsys as a Trusted Digital Repository, it is also critical to invest in the IT infrastructure supporting the system. This 

includes bandwidth, storage, and servers needed for the Production, COOP, Test, 

and Development environments. In fiscal year 2016, GPO will also explore how to 

migrate FDsys to the Cloud to reduce reliance on on-site physical infrastructure. 

GPO Achieves Savings in Information Dissemination 

Since fiscal year 1995, the first full year of our online operations, the cost of producing and distributing millions of copies of printed publications to Federal depository libraries nationwide was funded at $17.6 million, the equivalent of $27.3 million in constant dollars. For fiscal year 2016, we are proposing to fund this function 

at $8.2 million, a reduction of nearly 70 percent in constant dollar terms. Along with 

appropriations to GPO’s Revolving Fund, we have used the savings from reduced 

printing and distribution costs to pay for the establishment and operation of our digital information dissemination operations, achieving additional savings for the taxpayers and vastly expanding public access to Government information. 

Publication and Information Sales Program 

Along with the FDLP and FDsys, which are no-fee public access programs, GPO 

provides public access to official Federal information through public sales featuring 

secure ordering through an online bookstore, a bookstore at GPO headquarters in 

Washington, DC, and partnerships with the private sector that offer Federal publications as eBooks. As a one-stop shop for eBook design, conversion, and dissemination, our presence in the eBook market continues to grow. We now have agreements 

with Apple, Google’s eBookstore, Barnes & Noble, OverDrive, Ingram, Zinio, and 

other online vendors to make popular Government titles such as the Public Papers 

of the President-Barack Obama, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, and 

Ponzimonium: How Scam Artists are Ripping Off America available as eBooks. Additionally, in fiscal year 2014 we worked with Congress to make Hispanic Americans 

in Congress available as an eBook. 

Reimbursable Distribution Program 

We operate distribution programs for the information products of other Federal 

agencies on a reimbursable basis, including General Services Administration (GSA) 

Consumer Information Center publications, from warehouses in Pueblo, CO, and 

Laurel, MD. 
157 

GPO and Social Media 

We use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a book blog to share information about 

GPO news and events and to promote specific publications and products. By the end 

of fiscal year 2014, we had 3,932 likes on Facebook, 5,372 followers on Twitter, and 

120,000 views across 66 videos on YouTube. On Pinterest, we had 422 followers pinning on 15 boards of Federal Government information. Our book blog, Government 

Book Talk, focuses on increasing the awareness of new and classic Federal publications through reviews and discussions. 

GPO’S FINANCES

Business Operations Revolving Fund 

All GPO activities are financed through our Business Operations Revolving Fund. 

This business-like fund is used to pay all of GPO’s costs in performing congressional 

and agency publishing, information product procurement, and publications dissemination activities. It is reimbursed from payments from customer agencies, sales to 

the public, and transfers from GPO’s two annual appropriations: the Congressional 

Publishing Appropriation and the Public Information Programs of the Superintendent of Documents Appropriation. 

The Business Operations Revolving Fund functions as GPO’s checking account 

with the U.S. Treasury. GPO pays its expenses from this account either with electronic transfer or check. The fund is reimbursed when the Treasury Department 

transfers money from agency appropriations accounts to the fund when agencies pay 

GPO invoices. This procedure also applies to the payment of transfers from the Congressional Publishing and Public Information Programs appropriations, and to deposits of funds collected from sales to the public. 

GPO maintains a cash balance in the Business Operations Revolving Fund that 

is used to pay all expenses. The cash balance fluctuates daily as payments are received from agency reimbursements, customer payments, and transfers from GPO 

appropriations. 

Retained Earnings 

Under GPO’s system of accrual accounting, annual earnings generated since the 

inception of the Business Operations Revolving Fund have been accumulated as retained earnings. Retained earnings make it possible for GPO to fund a significant 

amount of technology modernization. However, appropriations for essential investments in technology and plant upgrades are also necessary and are requested annually. 

Appropriated Funds 

GPO’s Congressional Publishing Appropriation is used to reimburse the Business 

Operations Revolving Fund for costs of publishing the documents required for the 

use of Congress in digital and tangible formats, as authorized by the provisions of 

chapters 7 and 9 of Title 44, U.S.C. The Public Information Programs of the Superintendent of Documents Appropriation is used to pay for costs associated with providing online access to, and the distribution of, publications to Federal depository 

libraries, cataloging and indexing, statutory distribution, and international exchange distribution. The reimbursements from these appropriations are included in 

the Business Operations Revolving Fund as revenue for work performed. Money is 

also appropriated to GPO’s Business Operations Revolving Fund to increase working 

capital for necessary investments in information technology and facilities maintenance and repair. 

Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Results 

Revenue totaled $696.3 million while expenses charged against GPO’s budget 

were $672.3 million, for an overall net income of $24 million from operations. Included in both GPO’s revenue and net income is approximately $15.1 million in 

funds set aside for passport-related capital investments, as agreed to by GPO and 

the Department of State, and $2.1 million in funds resulting from an adjustment 

to GPO’s long-term workers’ compensation liability under the Federal Employees 

Compensation Act (FECA). Apart from these funds, GPO’s net operating income 

from fiscal year 2014 was $6.8 million. GPO’s financial statements are audited annually by an independent third party contracted for by our Office of Inspector General, and we routinely receive a clean, or as it is now called, ‘‘unmodified,’’ opinion. 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

We are requesting a total of $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2016, which is essentially 

flat compared to the level of funding, $119,993,000, approved for fiscal year 2015 
158 

in Public Law 113–235. Continuing overhead cost–cutting actions undertaken since 

fiscal year 2011, in addition to a buyout successfully conducted in the first quarter 

of fiscal year 2015 that reduced GPO’s workforce by 103 positions, have helped 

make this flat funding request possible. Additionally, with the approval of the 

House and Senate appropriations committees, each year we have transferred any 

unspent prior year balances from our appropriations to GPO’s business operation revolving fund, where they are available for the uses for which they were originally 

appropriated. This also has made it possible for us to reduce the need for new funding. 

Our fiscal year 2016 request will enable us to: 

—meet projected requirements for congressional publishing; 

—fund the operation of the public information programs of the Superintendent of 

Documents; and 

—develop information technology and perform facilities maintenance and repair. 

Congressional Publishing Appropriation 

We are requesting $79,736,000 for this account, the same level approved for fiscal 

year 2015 in Public Law 113–235. Unspent prior year balances from this account 

that have been transferred to GPO’s business operations revolving fund are available for the purposes of this account for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. 

House Report 112–148, accompanying the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill 

for fiscal year 2012, requires the presentation of budget requirements from a zero 

base. However, GPO has no control over the workload requirements of the Congressional Publishing Appropriation. These are determined by the legislative activities 

and requirements of the House of Representatives and the Senate as authorized by 

the applicable provisions of Title 44, U.S.C. GPO utilizes historical data incorporating other relevant factors to develop estimates of likely congressional publishing requirements. These requirements are used as the basis of the budget presentation for this account. 

For fiscal year 2015, we estimate that total congressional publishing requirements 

will be $82,669,000, using projections based on prior year data. We plan to use 

$2,933,000 of transfers from the unexpended balances of prior year appropriations 

to help offset these requirements. This reduced our need for new funding to 

$79,736,000, the level that has been approved for this year. 

For fiscal year 2016, we estimate that total congressional publishing requirements 

will be $85,750,000, using projections based on prior year data. We plan to use 

$6,014,000 that is available in unexpended prior funds to offset part of these requirements, resulting in our request for $79,736,000 in new funding. Additionally, 

we plan to set aside $7,478,000 in transferred unspent prior year funds to finance 

the continuing development of our Composition System Replacement project, which 

will implement an XML-based composition system in place of our 30-year old Microcomp system. This year, we plan to request approval for the transfer of approximately $540,000 in unspent prior year funds to our Business Operations Revolving 

Fund, to help cover future congressional publishing requirements. 

The estimated requirements for fiscal year 2016 include a projected price level increase of $1,881,000, primarily to cover employee pay increases equivalent with 

those paid government wide. Additionally, there is a $1,200,000 increase to cover 

anticipated volume requirements as derived from historical data, principally for the 

Congressional Record, calendars, and hearings. Partially offsetting these increases 

are volume decreases projected primarily for documents, bills, and committee prints. 

Public Information Programs of the Superintendent of Documents 

We are requesting $30,500,000 for this account, representing a decrease of 

$1,000,000 or 3.2 percent from the amount approved for fiscal year 2015 in Public 

Law 113–235. As with our Congressional Publishing Appropriation, unspent prior 

year balances from this account that have been transferred to GPO’s business operations revolving fund are available for the purposes of this account for fiscal year 

2015 and fiscal year 2016. The requested amount is based on the outcome of using 

zero-based budgeting to determine the proper levels of funding needed to perform 

program activities at minimum levels, as directed by House Report 112–148. 

The funding we are requesting for fiscal year 2016 will cover mandatory pay and 

related cost increases of $342,000. Merit and other pay increases are included for 

94 FTE’s, the same as for fiscal year 2015. In addition, the requested funding covers 

projected price level increases of $175,000, including ongoing systems maintenance 

and FDsys operating expenses. 

Unspent prior year appropriations balances that have been transferred with the 

approval of the Appropriations Committees to our Business Operations Revolving 

Fund, totaling $1,517,000 will be used to fund the continuation of cataloging and 
159 

indexing efforts to harvest and catalog historical publication for digital preservation. 

In 2015, we plan to request approval for the transfer of an additional $6,000,000 

in unspent prior year funds to support GPO’s digitization efforts to expand and develop new digital content and maintain the integrity of the system as a trusted digital repository. 

Business Operations Revolving Fund 

We are requesting $9,764,000 for this account, to remain available until expended, 

for continued information technology projects and necessary facilities projects. This 

compares with $8,757,000 that has been appropriated for fiscal year 2015. 

Information Technology Projects $5,532,000 

FDsys Projects—$4,000,000 

—General Development ($3,050,000)—Development of new FDsys features to 

support identified needs of key stakeholders, including developing new content collections, increasing content in existing collections, enhancing the accessibility of content, and increasing the discoverability of information in 

FDsys. 

—NextGen FDsys Public Website ($450,000)—Completion of development and 

launch of FDsys NextGen to support a responsive user interface, search engine replacement, public ation linking, user interface improvements, and 

content curation. 

—Certification of FDsys as a Trustworthy Digital Repository ($250,000)—Development to support the certification of the FDsys Preservation Repository 

as a Trustworthy Digital Repository. 

—FDsys Infrastructure ($250,000)—Infrastructure for the hardware, storage, 

and infrastructure environments to manage system performance as FDsys 

content and usage continues to grow, including support for GPO efforts to 

migrate FDsys infrastructure components to the Cloud. 

Enterprise System Upgrades—$1,532,000 

—Core Router/Switch Replacements ($400,000)—Replacement and upgrade 

for segments of GPO’s existing core routing infrastructure that have 

reached end of life. 

—Itanium Servers ($400,000)—Replacement and upgrade of the servers that 

support GPO’s publishing and printing capabilities. 

—Enterprise Storage ($300,000)—Infrastructure funding is necessary to ensure that GPO’s IT storage capacity continues to grow to support the agency’s application and data storage requirements. 

—Data Communications Equipment ($232,000)—Replacement and upgrade of 

core communications equipment that has reached end of life. 

—Web Filtering ($200,000)—Replacement and upgrade of the web filtering 

equipment that protects GPO users from accessing malicious and/or inappropriate Internet sites. 

Facilities Projects $4,232,000 

—Upgrade Electrical Substation ($3,500,000)—There is only one 480V substation 

in all of GPO’s Buildings A, B and C. New, more efficient equipment is 480V 

by standard (including elevators as well as production equipment). Without upgrading our substation, we risk running out of power to produce essential work 

for Congress and Federal agencies. 

—Structural Evaluations and Remedy Actions ($400,000)—We have areas of concrete floors that are degrading to the point where they may fail. This funding 

is to continue any third party structural analysis and for ongoing repairs on the 

areas in the worst shape. 

—Roof replacement ($332,000)—This represents the remaining phase of our 

multi–year roof upgrade to improve energy efficiency and reduce the potential 

for damage and health and safety concerns that can result from leaks in areas 

that are currently compromised. 

Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee, 

this concludes my prepared statement and I look forward to working with you and 

members of your staff as you consider our appropriations request for fiscal year 

2016. 
(160) 

1Public Law 104–1, Section 301(h)(1). 

2The Board members count as one FTE and are paid by OOC on a ‘‘while-actually-employed’’ 

basis. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. SAPIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE

OF COMPLIANCE

Madam Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and Members of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit 

for the record, this statement regarding the budget request for fiscal year 2016 for 

the Congressional Office of Compliance (OOC). 

In its 2016 budget request, the OOC seeks an appropriation of $4,020,000 for fiscal year 2016, the same amount as the fiscal year 2015 budget request and an additional $61,000, or 1.5 percent over the fiscal year 2015 enacted amount. This increase will allow us to make necessary improvements to protect our Web site 

www.compliance.gov to comply with existing cybersecurity standards and to build 

into the site the capacity to host on-demand on-line interactive training modules 

that we are developing for Congressional employees. The Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) requires the OOC to carry out a program of education for Members of Congress and other employing authorities of the legislative branch. As approximately half of congressional staff members are working in district and State 

offices instead of on Capitol Hill, our focus has shifted to e-learning as a means of 

carrying out our statutory educational mandate.1 We recently completed our first 

on-line module, on sexual harassment, and plan for more on other employment 

issues, such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A comprehensive training program, as envisioned in the CAA, 

continues to be one of the most effective investments an employer can make in reducing complaints and improving worker productivity and reducing absenteeism and 

employee turn-over. With readily available, user-friendly training modules, we expect to reach more employees. 

Looking forward to fiscal year 2016, we will continue to cross-train our small staff 

of 22 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and leverage our already lean operations 

with short term contracts for services. For example, we have used our occupational 

health and safety (OSH) specialists to conduct our ADA inspections to identify barriers to access for persons with disabilities. We have also used contractors to supplement those inspections so we could cover more areas and buildings. Following enactment of the Office of Compliance Administrative and Technical Corrections Act of 

2015, we have increased our use of outside mediators, who are reimbursed with a 

flat fee per mediation. This request contains sufficient funds to maintain a new case 

management system that we developed with fiscal year 2015 funds. We are working 

to add an e-filing component to the system. We are also enhancing our video teleconference equipment to save money on hearing officer travel for cases in district 

and State offices, and for providing technical assistance and training. The balance 

of our 1.5 percent budget increase is for cross-servicing providers (Library of Congress, National Finance Center) and other equipment, services, and supplies needed 

to operate the OOC. 

For 20 years now, the OOC has served Congress as a third party neutral for disputes and as an educator for workplace rights. The OOC has made significant contributions to the safety of congressional workplaces through its OSH biennial inspections and OSH case work, and it has used its ADA inspections and ADA case 

work to eliminate barriers to access to congressional facilities and programs for persons with disabilities. Each of the OOC’s five Board members received new 2-year 

terms in fiscal year 2015.2 They have an ambitious agenda for their remaining time, 

including but not limited to, publishing new ADA, Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA), and FMLA regulations for approval by Congress. The OOC staff will act on 

those initiatives as well as continuing to provide quality services to the congressional community on a day to day basis. 
161 

I am available to answer any questions or address any concerns the Chairwoman, 

the Ranking Member, or any of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee Members may 

have. 
(162) 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee did not hold formal hearings 

for nondepartmental witnesses. The statements of those submitting 

written testimony are as follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES

[Testimony on behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries, Association of 

Academic Health Sciences Libraries, Medical Library Association, and Special Libraries Association.] 

Dear Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record in support of 

the fiscal year 2016 funding requests of the Government Publishing Office (GPO) 

and the Library of Congress (LC). We congratulate Chairwoman Capito on her selection as chair of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee and Ranking Member Schatz 

on his selection as ranking member. We appreciate the supportive comments both 

of you made during the March 17 hearing on the Library of Congress. 

The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the Association of Academic 

Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the Medical Library Association (MLA), and the 

Special Libraries Association (SLA) represent more than 18,000 librarians and information specialists in the United States and around the world. We serve researchers, 

students, professionals, businesses, and members of the public with their information needs. Our members rely on GPO for permanent public access to official, authentic Government information and on LC for access to unique collections and authoritative resources. GPO and LC also provide leadership on many critical information policy issues, such as authentication, digitization, and preservation. Therefore, 

advocating for adequate funding for these agencies is a high priority for our associations. 

GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

Access to Government information is the bedrock of a strong democracy. For more 

than 150 years, GPO has ‘‘kept America informed’’ by providing access to official, 

authentic Government information. Today, GPO provides cost-effective access to 

Government information from all three branches in tangible and electronic formats 

primarily through the 200-year-old Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) and 

FDsys. 

We are pleased that Congress recognized GPO’s place in the twenty-first century 

by approving a name change for the agency in the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law 113–235. The new name, which 

changed GPO from the Government Printing Office to the Government Publishing 

Office, reflects GPO’s essential role in publishing and providing access to print and 

electronic information in the digital age. Our associations strongly support GPO’s request of $120 million, essentially a flat 

funding request. We urge the subcommittee to fully fund each account within the 

request, including Congressional Publishing, Public Information Programs of the Superintendent of Documents, and the Revolving Fund. 

Our associations support GPO’s request of $79,736,000 for the Congressional Publishing account. Legislative information—the daily and bound Congressional Record, 

congressional bills, full committee hearings, reports, prints and documents, as well 

as other materials—is among the most highly used Government material. While our 

members value the ability to access many of these materials electronically through 

FDsys, they continue to rely on print distribution of congressional and other materials to depository libraries. In part, this is because not all collections on FDsys are 

complete; for example, GPO recently conducted a study that revealed that thirty 

percent of distributed hearings are not available on FDsys. In addition, many users, 

including members of the public, law students, and faculty, still prefer to use the 
163 

print. Therefore, it is essential that GPO continue to produce some materials in tangible form. 

We also urge you to approve the requested $30,500,000 for the Public Information 

Programs of the Superintendent of Documents, which supports cataloging, indexing, 

and distribution of Federal publications to depository libraries. As indicated in the 

Superintendent of Documents’ National Plan for the Future of the FDLP, support 

for a strong cataloguing and indexing program is essential to ensuring continued 

discovery and access to Government information. 

For more than 200 years, the FDLP has provided geographically convenient access 

to Government information through a network of libraries around the country. 

Today, your constituents have access to congressional and other important Government publications and information products through the FDLP, with the assistance 

of trained librarians. The FDLP is undergoing a transformation to an increasingly 

electronic program. A key component of the National Plan is the Federal Information Preservation Network, which we believe will ensure continued access to Government information, now and for future generations. 

Our associations also support GPO’s request of $9,764,000 for the Revolving Fund. 

Particularly important to our associations is funding for the next generation of 

FDsys. FDsys launched in 2009 as the source for no-fee access to official, authentic 

Government information and today includes more than one million individual titles 

from all three branches of Government. Members of our associations contributed to 

the development of the first generation of FDsys. For example, AALL members suggested the ‘‘search by citation’’ feature, which was implemented by GPO. It is very 

important that GPO has adequate funding to increase FDsys content, improve 

search functionality, and pursue certification as a Trustworthy Digital Repository. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

For 215 years, the Library of Congress has been dedicated to its mission to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress 

of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people. LC has the 

unique role of acquiring, cataloguing, preserving, and making accessible a vast 

array of books, recordings, photographs, maps, and manuscripts. 

The Law Library of Congress is the world’s largest law library, with a collection 

of nearly three million volumes spanning the ages and covering virtually every jurisdiction in the world. The Law Library is a world leader in providing access to reliable legal materials in print and electronic formats. We strongly support the Library’s priority initiatives, including the classification of the remaining volumes to 

Class K Law Classification and the hiring of dedicated staff to complete this work. 

Additional staff will allow the Law Library to complete this challenging work in a 

timely manner and improve the discoverability and accessibility of these materials. 

We also support the Library’s $4,814,000 request for its National Collection Stewardship Program to protect its collections by expanding storage on its Capitol Hill 

campus through the installation of compact shelving and the lease of interim collections storage space until construction of Fort Meade modules, including Module 5, 

is complete. The Library’s one-of-a-kind collection must be protected. 

As information is increasingly produced, acquired and preserved electronically, 

the Library faces monumental challenges in its quest to provide access to knowledge. Therefore, we support the Library’s decision to hire a Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Deputy CIO. We believe the CIO and Deputy CIO will help the Library update its infrastructure and better respond to the growing needs of the institution. 

We commend LC and GPO for working together, along with the National Archives 

and Records Administration, to form the Federal Web Archiving Working Group. 

Preserving born-digital Government information and making it accessible will benefit librarians, researchers, historians, and all Americans. Without this collaboration, publicly available born digital materials are at risk of being lost forever. 

CONCLUSION

GPO and LC play a critical role in ensuring permanent public access to Government information in all formats and preserving our cultural heritage. GPO and LC 

ensure that the American people have continued access to the information that supports a strong democracy. 
164 

1For more information, visit http://congressionaldata.org/. 

AALL, AAHSL, MLA, and SLA respectfully urge you to fully fund the appropriations requests of the Government Publishing Office and the Library of Congress. 

Sincerely, 

HOLLY M. RICCIO, 

President, 

American Association of Law Libraries. 

ABOUT THE ASSOCIATIONS 

AALL.—The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) was founded in 1906 

to promote law libraries’ value to the legal and public communities, foster the law 

librarianship profession, and provide leadership in the legal information field. With 

nearly 5,000 members, AALL represents law librarians and related professionals 

who are affiliated with law firms; law schools; corporate legal departments; courts; 

and local, state, and Federal Government agencies. 

AAHSL.—The Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) supports academic health sciences libraries and directors in advancing the patient care, 

research, education and community service missions of academic health centers 

through visionary executive leadership and expertise in health information, scholarly communication, and knowledge management. AAHSL membership is composed 

of 166 academic health sciences libraries whose medical schools hold member or associate member status in the Association of American Medical Colleges. 

MLA.—The Medical Library Association (MLA) is a nonprofit, educational organization with 3,700 health sciences information professional and institutional members worldwide. Founded in 1898, MLA provides lifelong educational opportunities, 

supports a knowledgebase of health information research, and works with a global 

network of partners to promote the importance of quality information for improved 

health to the healthcare community and the public. 

SLA.—The Special Libraries Association (SLA) is a nonprofit global organization 

for innovative information professionals and their strategic partners. SLA serves 

about 8,000 members in 75 countries in the information profession, including corporate, academic, and Government information specialists. SLA promotes and 

strengthens its members through learning, advocacy, and networking initiatives. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL DATA COALITION

Dear Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and Senators Kirk, Moran, and 

Murphy: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on legislative branch funding 

priorities for fiscal year 2016. Our recommendations focus on improving efficiency 

within and transparency concerning offices and agencies of the legislative branch, 

with an emphasis on better use of information technology. 

ABOUT US

The Congressional Data Coalition is a coalition of citizens, public interest groups, 

trade associations, and businesses that champion greater Government transparency 

through improved public access to and long-term preservation of congressional information.1

RECOGNITION OF ONGOING SENATE ACTIVITIES

We commend the United States Senate for its recent commitment to publish bill 

status and summary information—soon to be joined by legislative text—online and 

in a structured data format. We also appreciate the quarterly public meetings 

hosted by the invaluable Bulk Data Task Force, of which delegates from the Senate 

often participate. We remain hopeful that progress will be made on the Joint Committee on Printing’s directive to digitize volumes of the Congressional Record from 

1873 to 1998. 

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

—Extend and broaden the Bulk Data Task Force 

—Publish the Congressional Record in XML and eliminate electronic publication 

gaps 

—Publish a complete and auditable archive of bill text, in a structured electronic 

format 
165 

2 House Report 112–511, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt511/pdf/ 

CRPT-112hrpt511.pdf. 3See http://xml.house.gov/. 

4See http://www.scribd.com/doc/48672433/Constitution-Annotated-Congressional-Record-andStatutes-at-Large. 5https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/02/20/sample-the-new-a-la-carte-congressionalrecord-parser/. 6 In the meanwhile, publication of the Congressional Record in locator code format along with 

GPO’s locator code-to-PDF conversion software, in source code form, may suffice in the interim. 

—Instantiate a Senate-wide committee record publishing system 

—Publish a contemporaneous list of widely-distributed CRS reports that contains 

the report name, publication/revision/withdrawal date, and report ID number 

—Release widely-distributed CRS reports to the public 

—Publish Bioguide in XML with a change log 

—Publish the Constitution Annotated in a machine-readable format 

—Publish Senate office and support agency reports online 

—Publish Senate Expenditure Reports in a machine-readable format 

EXTEND AND BROADEN THE BULK DATA TASK FORCE

One of the greatest successes of the efforts to modernize legislative information 

was the creation of the Bulk Data Task Force,2 the recommendations of which led 

to the online publication of bill summaries and text in a structured data format and 

the commitment to add bill status information this year, as well as other improvements. While the Task Force issued its final report in the 113th Congress, many 

of its participants continue to meet. The Task Force is a unique forum for congressional content creators and publishers to work together and interact with the public. 

We hope the Senate will deepen its participation as it continues to send delegates 

from its Senate and legislative support offices to participate in deliberations. 

We urge the subcommittee to formally reestablish the Task Force on a permanent 

basis and expand its mission to broadening availability of congressional information 

in machine readable formats. There is precedent for this, with the XML Working 

Group that was created in the 1990s to establish document type definitions for use 

in creating legislative documents in XML.3 Its scope should include legislative information and records held by committees, offices, and legislative branch agencies as 

well as other information concerning the operation of Congress. 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD IN XML

The Congressional Record, as the official record of the proceedings and debates 

of the Congress, is central to understanding congressional activities. Many of the 

resources we have come to rely upon, such as Congress.gov, republish just a fraction 

of its contents. Unfortunately, the Congressional Record is not published in bulk in 

a structured data format, but instead as plain text, and, in some cases, as less 

versatile PDFs. In addition, the Congressional Record is available online only from 

1994 forward and prior to 1873. The Joint Committee on Printing authorized GPO 

to fill in the 100-plus-year gap in 2011,4 although it is unclear whether online publication would be as structured data or in a less flexible format (such as PDF). 

While there had been efforts by the public to scrape the version of the Congressional Record on the old THOMAS.gov,5 the results were incomplete and the same 

scrapable information no longer exists on Congress.gov. Moreover, there is no substitute for official publication in a structured data format like XML. We urge the 

committee to inquire into GPO’s efforts to fill the online publication gap and to require future publication of the Congressional Record in XML.6

COMPLETE AND AUDITABLE BILL TEXT

The Government Publishing Office is charged to accurately and authentically 

print the bills before Congress, yet there are gaps in GPO’s archive—as seen on 

FDSys—without any explanation. In addition, public access to the text of bills in 

the 101st and 102nd Congresses are being removed as a part of the retirement of 

THOMAS.gov. Furthermore, GPO holds structured data for bills prior to the 111th 

Congress (when both House and Senate legislation were first published in XML) 

that it does not make available to the public at all (i.e., in locator code format). We 

ask that GPO publicly report on the presence or absence of public access to all 

prints of bills starting with the 101st Congress, including access to the prints in a 

structured data format, with a public audit log in CSV format. This would build 

trust in GPO’s authenticity and accuracy processes. 
166 

7 Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress for Fiscal 

Year 2012, p. 2, available at http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/crs12lannrpt.pdf. 8See Comments of the Sunlight Foundation, May 24, 2013, available at https:// 

s3.amazonaws.com/assets.sunlightfoundation.com/policy/testimony/Sunlight%20Foundation%20 

Leg%20Branch%20Approps%20Testimony%202013-05-24.pdf. 

INSTANTIATE A SENATE-WIDE COMMITTEE RECORD PUBLISHING SYSTEM

Committee documents are vital records of congressional activity, but they often 

are hard to find or search, and are subject to removal from a committee website 

when leadership turns over or Web sites are updated. We urge the Senate to institute a chamber-wide committee publishing system that serves as a comprehensive 

repository across committees and congresses. 

To address this problem, the House of Representatives created Docs.house.gov, 

which ‘‘provides access to committee documents and text of legislation being considered in committee . . .’’ dating back to the 112th Congress in XML formats where 

available. It includes meeting notices, witness lists, witness and member statements, legislative and amendment text, and more. The Clerk of the House administers the site to ensure it is viewed as nonpartisan. Docs.house.gov guarantees that 

public access to committee records is maintained even as leadership changes and 

committee websites are updated. We urge the Senate to provide the same level of 

access to its committee documents. 

CRS REPORTS

CRS reports often inform public debate. Its analyses are routinely cited in news 

reports, by the courts, in congressional debate, and by government watchdogs. However, unlike its sister legislative branch agencies, CRS reports are not released to 

the public by CRS even though CRS routinely shares them with the media upon 

request and with officials in the executive branches. In addition, public access often 

is through third parties that routinely charge a fee for access. We believe all Americans should have an equal opportunity to be educated about important legislative 

issues—including knowing which reports have recently been released and having 

free access to them. 

We request the subcommittee require CRS to contemporaneously publish online 

a list of the names, report numbers, and publication/revision/withdrawal dates for 

CRS reports. We do not include CRS memoranda, which are confidential. In this 

way, members of the public may contact their Senators if they see a report they are 

interested in upon its publication or revision. CRS already provides an annual report to the Committee, published on CRS’s Web site, which lists the total number 

of reports issued or updated. In fiscal year 2012, for example, 534 new reports were 

prepared and 2,702 reports were updated.7 This accounting should be expanded to 

include an index of the reports and be updated on a daily basis in a machine-readable format. 

We further request the public be provided direct online access to the recent Congressional Research Service reports, which we have discussed in prior testimony to 

the Committee.8

PUBLISH BIOGUIDE IN XML WITH A CHANGE LOG

The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (or Bioguide) is an excellent source of information about current and former Members of Congress. Since 

1998, the online version of the Bioguide has been maintained by staff in the Office 

of the Clerk’s Office of History and Preservation and the Office of the Historian of 

the United States Senate at http://bioguide.congress.gov. Since at least 2007, the underlying data structures for Bioguide data have been provided by the House at its 

XML Web site. Unfortunately for those who wish to programmatically make use of 

the information, the Web site’s data is published only in HTML. In addition, the 

Bioguide Web site provides up to three HTML files for each Member: a biography, 

extended bibliography, and research collection, which can triple the amount of work 

required to fully scrape the Web site. We recommend Bioguide information be published in XML. In addition, a change log for the Bioguide Web site through Twitter 

or an RSS/Atom feed would be helpful to keep the public apprised of updates/ 

changes. 

CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED

The Constitution Annotated (or CONAN) is a continuously-updated century-old 

legal treatise that explains the Constitution as it has been interpreted by Supreme 

Court. While the Joint Committee on Printing required in November 2010 that GPO 
167 

9See http://www.scribd.com/doc/48672433/Constitution-Annotated-Congressional-Record-andStatutes-at-Large. 

and CRS to publish CONAN online, with new features, and with updates as soon 

as they are prepared, it did not require publication in a machine-readable format.9

This is an important omission, as the document is prepared in XML yet published 

online as a PDF, even while it is internally available to Congress as a series of 

HTML pages. This issue is ripe for resolution. At a minimum, publication of either 

the XML source or the HTML pages would address many of our concerns. 

SENATE OFFICE AND SUPPORT AGENCY REPORTS

The legislative offices and agencies that support the work of the United States 

Senate issue annual or semi-annual reports on their work. These reports are of interest to the public as they help explain legislative operations and often can help 

ensure public accountability. While some offices routinely publish their reports online, others do not, or do not do so in a timely fashion. We urge that the subcommittee to require all legislative support offices and agencies that regularly issue 

reports that summarize their activities to publish those reports online in a timely 

fashion, including back issues. 

SEMI-ANNUAL SENATE REPORT ON RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES

The semi-annual Senate report on Receipts and Expenditures contain all spending 

by the U.S. Senate and are currently published online as a PDF. They should be 

published as data files, such as CSV, to allow for the public to easily analyze the 

information. The online publication that started in 2011 was a significant step forward, but the data should be available in a more flexible format. 

We appreciate your attention to these issues. 

Sincerely yours, 

Congressional Data Coalition 

Data Transparency Coalition 

Demand Progress 

Free Government Information 

GovTrack.us 

OpenTheGovernment.org 

R Street Institute 

Sunlight Foundation 

[This statement was submitted by Daniel Schuman, Demand Progress Policy Director.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD, 

AFSCME LOCAL 2910 

Chairwoman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 

2016 budget request for the Library of Congress submitted by the Librarian, Dr. 

James H. Billington. Our organization—the Library of Congress Professional Guild, 

AFSCME Local 2910—represents over 1250 professional employees throughout the 

Library of Congress including Library Services, the Copyright Office, the Law Library, Information Technology Services and the Office of Strategic Initiatives, and 

all of the Library’s Support Operations. 

The American economy is a knowledge-based economy which demands high levels 

of education and innovation. The ability to leverage the intellectual capital in our 

society is becoming as important as the utilization of our natural resources or the 

production of commodities. Advances in medicine, science, energy, literature and the 

arts, telecommunications and information technology are being transformed into 

economic prosperity for our Nation. 

The Library of Congress has a pivotal role to play in this unfolding drama. We 

thank you for your support of the Library’s programs in fiscal year 2015 and we 

urge you to support the Librarian’s current budget request of $666.6 million. 

Staffing.—Sequestration and flat funding in recent years have taken a toll. It can 

be debated whether the Library is experiencing a ‘‘retirement tsunami.’’ But one 

thing is certain—talented, seasoned Library veterans are leaving the workforce at 

an alarming rate, taking with them their institutional knowledge and often a lifetime of experience. This exodus of career employees poses a growing threat which 

is undermining the Library’s ability to fulfill its’ mission. 

Hiring staff to fill critical vacancies is imperative to stem the erosion of the Library’s mission-critical functions. As statistical information the Guild recently compiled shows, two of the Library’s core functions have suffered crippling shortages. 
168 

In 2004 there were 506 staff members in the Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access 

(ABA) unit of Library Services. Ten years later—in 2014—these cataloging and acquisition librarians saw their numbers reduced to 238, a roughly 50 percent decrease. Similarly, reference services in the Library’s Collections Services (CS) unit 

were supported by 313 staff members in 2004. But by 2014 their numbers were reduced to 238, almost a 25 percent reduction in the staff who directly serve our 

users. Congressional support is essential if the Library is to sustain its’ staff many 

of whom have highly specialized subject matter and foreign language expertise. 

I am pleased to report to the subcommittee one small, but important initiative at 

the Library, a 1 year Phased Retirement Pilot program that was negotiated with 

the Library’s three unions. 

On August 8, 2014 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published the final 

rules for its’ phased retirement program and, soon thereafter, the Library proposed 

the establishment of a Phased Retirement Pilot. Although the Library’s pilot is a 

modest one, we are pleased to note that it is the first one implemented in the Federal Government; we hope it will assist the Library with the transfer of knowledge 

from veteran staff to the next generation of employees. 

Stewardship.—The Library of Congress is well-known for having the largest and 

most comprehensive collection of intellectual and cultural materials in the world. 

But where is it going to house all of these collections? Even digital resources must 

be housed. 

Members of the subcommittee may have heard stories of the hundreds of thousands of books on the floor or on book trucks in the Jefferson and Adams buildings. 

It may be hard for subcommittee members to visualize, but this overcrowding of the 

stacks also creates and magnifies the fire safety and life safety hazards present in 

those book stacks, putting the collections at greater risk as well as the employees 

who work in the stacks. 

Our book stacks are housed on a metal grid of flooring that is very old. Unlike 

the regular floors in these historic buildings, the stacks provide no good barriers to 

the spread of fire and smoke. An old book conveyor system cuts through the floors 

making a path for the spread of fire. In addition, the weight of all of these books 

is nearing the peak load sustainable by the metal grid of flooring. These areas have 

no protected exit path for staff and some even lack fire doors. 

As far back as 2000–2001, the Office of Compliance cited the Library and the Architect of the Capitol for these life safety and fire safety hazards and while some 

corrections have been made, overloading the stacks and piling books on the floor 

makes conditions worse. At least, the overcrowding can be alleviated with funds for 

offsite storage. And please support the Architect’s request for funding to build protected exits for the Adams and Jefferson buildings. 

Like Gutenberg’s printing press seven centuries ago, advances in information 

technology have triggered another information revolution that affects every part of 

American society. Just like traditional print materials, acquiring, maintaining, providing access and preserving digital materials and digital collections present unique 

problems and challenges. For the past 30 years, the Library’s programs to collect 

and manage digital materials in its special collections have been based in different 

Library units without an adequate central location to provide coordination and communication, but with your support that is about to change. 

The Guild seeks your support for the Library’s request for funding to establish 

and staff a Digital Collections Center. The Library’s collection of digital materials 

doubles in size every few years and this rapid growth shows no sign of abating in 

the years to come. Both for the Library itself and the wider American and world 

library community, there needs to be a centralized platform for managing the vast 

array of digital materials that the Library collects. 

The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped.—The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) administers 

a free library service to U.S. citizens who, due to organic dysfunction, are unable 

to read conventionally printed materials. This includes persons with blindness, low 

vision, macular degeneration, as well as those with physical disabilities, such as 

Parkinson’s Disease, Muscular Dystrophy, Cerebral Palsy, spinal cord injuries—in 

other words, anyone with a condition that inhibits the handling of printed material. 

NLS administers this national library system for persons with print disabilities and 

supplies audio and braille books, magazines, and music-instructional materials via 

a network of libraries that includes 55 regional, 39 sub-regional libraries and 14 advisory and outreach centers serving over 500,000 patrons. Books and magazines are 

available in accessible audio and braille formats; books are sent on flash memory 

cartridges to patrons or can be downloaded directly from the BARD Web site and 
169 

a free digital player is provided for audio titles. Over 23 million books and magazines are circulated annually by NLS. 

Due to the rapid changes in accessible technologies and improvements in delivery 

mechanisms, access to materials by the print disabled community is improving. To 

that end, the Guild supported the staff of NLS by advocating for the Marrakesh 

Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually 

Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. NLS rightly enjoys a reputation as a global 

leader in the provision of library service for persons with print disabilities and 

serves a diverse patron base that includes veterans, children, the elderly, and an 

ever-growing Spanish-speaking population. We thank the committee for its continued support of this vital service for many persons with disabilities across the United 

States. 

The U.S. Copyright Office.—The creativity of authors in the United States is 

available everywhere one looks—in ebooks and print, in songs on streaming Internet 

radio, in motion pictures, and in smartphone apps hidden in our pockets. It is no 

understatement to say that American creativity brings cultural and economic riches. 

As the agency administering Copyright Law, the U. S. Copyright Office plays a 

critical role in the life of our Nation. Today, elected officials, academics, and others 

are examining how the Copyright Office can better serve the public; strengthen its 

technology infrastructure, and broaden its external mission. Such a review is important and long overdue. Behind this big picture, we wish to highlight the Copyright 

Office’s Registration Program, whose employees work directly with small authors 

and the large copyright industry. 

Copyright owners rely on registration because the Copyright Office uses it to establish a public record of copyright ownership. These public records represent a stable foundation of copyright facts that enable parties to resolve problems without litigation. Of the 476,000 copyright claims that were registered by the Office in 2014, 

less than 1 percent ended up in U.S. Federal court. The copyright registration system hums because of 79 registration specialists and 7 problem resolution specialists. 

These individuals are the unflagging engine of the Copyright Office. 

Unfortunately, the number of registration staff has diminished substantially over 

the last 4 years (there were 130 registration specialists in 2010). For this reason, 

the Guild strongly supports the budget request for increased funding to the Copyright Office. The addition of 20 Registration Specialists comes at a critical time; 

work-on-hand is increasing and the electronic system remains inadequate and unfinished. 

The Guild also supports the Library’s request to add 5 full-time equivalents 

(FTEs) in Recordation to direct the business process reengineering in that area. The 

office must continue its transition from a labor-intensive paper process to an effective electronic one. 

Office of Inclusiveness, Opportunity and Compliance.—Resources for the Library’s 

Office of Inclusiveness, Opportunity and Compliance (OIC) are at its lowest ebb. 

OIC implements the Library’s Equal Employment Opportunity Program. It is responsible for the internal resolution of complaints and charges of discrimination and 

for assisting managers, supervisors, and employees with the resolution of other 

workplace disputes through mediation. The Office is a resource for identifying effective accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and it provides interpreting services for deaf and hard of hearing employees and members of the public. It provides training and analysis on diversity issues. But insufficient staffing 

and stature within the Library has resulted in significant delays in mediation services, providing effective accommodations, and discrimination complaint processing. 

Information Technology.—This past year the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has been at the Library studying the Library’s technology infrastructure. And 

on January 23, 2015 Dr. Billington announced that the Library will be conducting 

a national search for a Chief Information Officer and a Deputy Chief Information 

Officer. The forthcoming GAO report and the selection of a CIO is big news. 

We assure the members of the subcommittee that whatever recommendations or 

changes may be implemented as a result of these initiatives, they can depend upon 

the IT specialists at the Library of Congress to move forward with dedication, expertise and skill. While there is an air of uncertainty about the future of the Library’s 

IT management structure, we know that the employees who provide direct, in-house 

technology services and digital planning will be there for us on the front lines, 

thinking forward to the next challenge. 
170 

In conclusion, thank you for your continuing support for the programs and staff 

of The Library of Congress. 

SAUL SCHNIDERMAN, 

President, 

Library of Congress Professional Guild, AFSCME Local 2910. 
(171) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Adams, Hon. Julie E., Secretary of the Senate, Office of the Secretary: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 43 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 39 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 41 

American Association of Law Libraries, Prepared Statement of the: 

Testimony on behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries, Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, Medical Library Association, and Special Libraries Association ....................................................... 162 

Ayers, Hon. Stephen T., Architect of the Capitol: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 126 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 125 

Billington, Dr. James H., Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 98 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 147 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 95 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 96 

Bittner, Mamie, Director of Communications and Congressional Relations, 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................ 125 

Braddock, Richard, Chief Administrative Officer, United States Capitol Police ......................................................................................................................... 72 

Capito, Senator Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator From West Virginia: 

Opening Statements of................................................................................. 1, 39, 95 

Questions Submitted by ............................................................................. 36, 90, 91 

Carroll, Tom, Chief Financial Officer, Architect of the Capitol ........................... 125 

Congressional Data Coalition, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 164 

Dine, Hon. Kim C., Chief of Police, United States Capitol Police: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 74 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 91 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 72 

Dodaro, Hon. Gene L., Comptroller General of the United States Government 

Accountability Office: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 10 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 9 

Elmendorf, Dr. Douglas W., Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 5 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 36 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 1 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 3 

Garcia, Ileana, Financial Clerk at the U.S. Senate, Office of the Secretary ...... 39 

Jones, Mary Suit, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Senate, Office of the Secretary ..................................................................................................................... 39 

Keninger, Karen, Director, National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library of Congress ........................................................... 95 

Klutts, Mary, Chief Financial Officer, Library of Congress ................................. 95 
Page

172 

Larkin, Hon. Frank J., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 60 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 90 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 59 

Library of Congress Professional Guild, AFSCME Local 2910, Prepared Statement of the ............................................................................................................ 167 

Malloy, Daniel, Assistant Chief and Chief of Operations, United States Capitol Police .............................................................................................................. 72 

Mao, David, Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of Congress ........................ 95 

Mazanec, Dr. Mary B., Director, Congressional Research Service, Library 

of Congress ........................................................................................................... 95 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 102 

Merdon, Christine, Chief Operating Officer, Architect of the Capitol ................ 125 

Morhard, Jim, Deputy Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Senate ........................................ 59 

Newlen, Robert, Chief of Staff, Library of Congress ............................................ 95 

Pallante, Maria A., Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States 

Copyright Office, Library of Congress ................................................................ 95 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 106 

Ropella, Fay F., Inspector General, United States Capitol Police ....................... 72 

Sapin, Barbara J., Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, Prepared 

Statement of ......................................................................................................... 160 

Schatz, Senator Brian, U.S. Senator From Hawaii: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................. 92, 147 

Statements of .............................................................................................. 2, 40, 117 

Scheffler, Elizabeth, Interim Chief Information Officer and Associate Librarian for Strategic Initiatives, Library of Congress .............................................. 95 

Suddreth, Lucy, Director of Support Operations, Library of Congress ............... 95 

Sweeney, Mark, Associate Librarian for Library Services, Library of Congress ...................................................................................................................... 95 

Vance-Cooks, Davita, Director, Government Publishing Office, Prepared 

Statement of ......................................................................................................... 151 
(173) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL Page 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 147 

Aging Buildings Require Critical Investment ....................................................... 127 

Architect of the Capitol Poster Boards (Photos 1–15) .......................................... 134 

Contract Oversight .................................................................................................. 145 

Critical Projects ....................................................................................................... 131 

Fort Meade ............................................................................................................... 146 

Hart Atrium and Calder Sculpture ........................................................................ 144 

Photos: 

Architect of the Capitol Stonemason Makes Repairs to the Olmsted Terrace Walls ...................................................................................................... 129 

Chiller Reaching the End of Its Life Expectancy ........................................... 132 

Deteriorated Senate Underground Garage ..................................................... 132 

Deteriorating Stone on the Russell Senate Office Building Exterior ........... 128 

Olmsted’s Summerhouse is an American Historic Treasure ........................ 131 

Safety Canopy Over the Rotunda in Support of the Capitol Dome Restoration ................................................................................................................. 126 

Spalling Stone on the U.S. Capitol Building .................................................. 130 

Stone Sugaring on the Russell Senate Office Building Balustrade .............. 130 

Project: 

Prioritization Process ....................................................................................... 142 

Schedule and Cost ............................................................................................ 146 

Stone Deterioration ................................................................................................. 143 

U.S. Capitol Dome Restoration ............................................................................... 142 

Union Square and Grant Memorial Conservation ................................................ 144 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 36 

CBO’s Funding: 

History and Its Effects on Staffing and Output ............................................. 5 

Request and Its Consequences for Staffing and Output ............................... 7 

Dynamic Scoring ...................................................................................................... 31 

Impact on CBO’s Staff ...................................................................................... 33 

Uncertainty of CBO’s Estimates ..................................................................... 35 

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy Service 

Contracts (UESCs) ............................................................................................... 26 

Explanation for Three New Full-time Equivalent Positions ................................ 24 

FTEs Authorized for Fiscal Years 2002 Through 2016—Figure 1 ...................... 6 

Funding for Fiscal Years 2011 Through 2016—Figure 2 ..................................... 6 

Hiring Employees With Non-Immigrant Visas ..................................................... 24 

King v. Burwell ........................................................................................................ 28 

Twenty Percent Reduction in Affordable Care Act Subsidies .............................. 30 

Use of Contractors at CBO ..................................................................................... 24 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Appendix I: GAO’s 2015 High Risk List ................................................................ 21 

Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration ..... 21 

Ensuring Public Safety and Security .............................................................. 21 

Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively ........................................... 21 

Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs ............... 22 
Page

174 

Appendix I—Continued 

Strengthening the Foundation for Efficiency and Effectiveness .................. 21 

Transforming DOD Program Management .................................................... 21 

Appendix II: GAO’s Strategic Plan Framework ................................................... 23 

Assisting Congress and the Nation ........................................................................ 12 

Examples of Fiscal Year 2014 Testimonies By Goal—Figure 1 .................... 15 

Goal 1: Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being 

and Financial Security of the American People .................................. 15 

Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges 

of Global Interdependence .................................................................... 15 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication ...................................................... 17 

GAO Contribution to a Wide Range of Key Appropriations and Authorization Legislation ............................................................................................. 12 

Cost Savings and Efficiencies ................................................................... 13 

Improvements to Federal Acquisitions .................................................... 13 

Increasing Government Transparency .................................................... 13 

Protecting Workers and Consumers ........................................................ 14 

Responding to Emerging Security Issues ................................................ 13 

Services for Veterans ................................................................................ 13 

GAO’s Work Helps Congress Avoid Sequestration ........................................ 12 

High Risk Program ........................................................................................... 16 

Legal Work ........................................................................................................ 17 

Program and Operational Benefits Due to GAO’s Work ............................... 14 

Testimonies ....................................................................................................... 15 

Background .............................................................................................................. 11 

Center for Audit Excellence .................................................................................... 20, 25 

Fiscal Year 2010 Baseline and Fiscal Year 2014 to Fiscal Year 2016 Summary 

of Resources .......................................................................................................... 19 

Fiscal Year 2016: 

Performance Budget ......................................................................................... 11 

Requirements .................................................................................................... 18 

GAO: 

2015 High Risk List—Appendix I ................................................................... 21 

Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration .......................................................................................................... 21 

Ensuring Public Safety and Security ....................................................... 21 

Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively .................................... 21 

Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs ........ 22 

Strengthening the Foundation for Efficiency and Effectiveness ........... 21 

Transforming DOD Program Management ............................................. 21 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 9 

Education Demographic ................................................................................... 25 

Highlights .......................................................................................................... 11 

Recognized as One of the ‘‘Best Places to Work’’ ........................................... 20 

Reports and Recommendations ....................................................................... 33 

Return on Investment ...................................................................................... 9 

Strategic Plan Framework ............................................................................... 23 

Workforce .......................................................................................................... 10 

Improper Payments ................................................................................................. 34 

Managing Workload by Focusing Resources on Congressional Priorities ........... 18 

Operational Efficiencies .......................................................................................... 19 

Building and Security ...................................................................................... 20 

Information Technology ................................................................................... 20 

Telework/Workspace-Sharing Pilots Reduce Costs and Improve Operational Efficiency .......................................................................................... 20 

Staff Capacity ........................................................................................................... 19 

Priority Areas for Increased Staffing .............................................................. 19 

Strategic Plan for Serving Congress ...................................................................... 18 

Tax Gap .................................................................................................................... 34 
Page

175 

GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

About ......................................................................................................................... 151 

Fiscal Year 2016 Appropriations Request ............................................................. 157 

Business Operations Revolving Fund ............................................................. 159 

Congressional Publishing Appropriation ........................................................ 158 

Facilities Projects ............................................................................................. 159 

Information Technology Projects ..................................................................... 159 

Enterprise System Upgrades .................................................................... 159 

FDsys Projects ........................................................................................... 159 

Public Information Programs of the Superintendent of Documents ............ 158 

GPO: 

And: 

Congress ..................................................................................................... 153 

GPO Cuts the Cost of Congressional Work ...................................... 153 

Highlights of Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Work ....................... 153 

Federal Agencies ....................................................................................... 153 

Highlights of Fiscal Year 2014 Agency Operations ......................... 154 

Partnership With Industry ................................................................ 154 

Open, Transparent Government .............................................................. 155 

Federal: 

Depository Library Program ...................................................... 155 

Digital System ............................................................................. 155 

FDsys Improvements Planned for Fiscal Year 2016 ....................... 156 

GPO: 

Achieves Savings in Information Dissemination ...................... 156 

And Social Media ........................................................................ 157 

Publication and Information Sales Program .................................... 156 

Reimbursable Distribution Program ................................................ 156 

Finances ............................................................................................................ 157 

Appropriated Funds .................................................................................. 157 

Business Operations Revolving Fund ...................................................... 157 

Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Results ......................................................... 157 

Retained Earnings ..................................................................................... 157 

History ...................................................................................................................... 151 

Strategic Vision and Plan ....................................................................................... 152 

Technology Transformation .................................................................................... 152 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Building the Digital Collection ........................................................................... 117, 147 

Cairo, Egypt Overseas Office .................................................................................. 121 

Congressional Research Service: 

Budget Considerations ..................................................................................... 104 

Health Experts .......................................................................................... 104 

Product and Service Enhancements ........................................................ 105 

Workforce Initiatives ................................................................................. 105 

Centennial Publication, the Senate Rules Committee Print ‘‘The Evolving 

Congress’’ ....................................................................................................... 102 

Constitution of the Unted States of America Annotated .............................. 102 

Healthcare Expertise in CRS .......................................................................... 116 

Senate Rules Committee Print ‘‘The Evolving Congress’’ ............................. 102 

Support for Congress ........................................................................................ 103 

2014 Farm Bill ........................................................................................... 103 

Ebola Virus Outbreak ............................................................................... 103 

Other Legislative Topics of Support ........................................................ 104 

Copyright: 

Library of Congress Synergies ......................................................................... 121 

Office Within the Library of Congress ............................................................ 119 

Digital: ......................................................................................................................

Collection Center........................................................................................... 101, 113 

Library Content Group (DLCG) Criteria for Evaluating Proposals to 

Digitize Analog Materials Prepared by Specialists .................................... 148 

Evening Services of Congressional Dialogues on Great American Presidents ... 101 

Exhibitions and Special Events .............................................................................. 102 

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request......................................................................... 98, 107 

Funding for Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped ............................ 114 
Page

176 

Futures Program ...................................................................................................... 101 

Healthcare Expertise in CRS .................................................................................. 116 

Impact of Terrorism on Overseas Operations ....................................................... 115 

Law Library ............................................................................................................. 100 

Legislative Branch Financial Management System (LBFMS) ............................. 101 

Library’s: 

Congressional Research Service ...................................................................... 99 

Services .............................................................................................................. 100 

Veterans History Project (VHP) ...................................................................... 101 

Members of Congress’ Evening Services of Congressional Dialogues on Great 

American Presidents ............................................................................................ 101 

National Collection Stewardship Program ............................................................ 112 

Resources and Organizational Location of Copyright ........................................... 120 

Services Performed by the Library’s Dedicated and Multi-Talented 

Staff ............................................................................................................... 98, 99, 100

Skill Gaps ................................................................................................................. 100 

Staffing the Digital Collection ................................................................................ 119 

Storage Space ........................................................................................................... 100 

Sustaining the Oldest Federal Cultural Institution ............................................. 122 

U.S. Copyright Office ........................................................................................... 100, 106 

Administering the Copyright Law .................................................................. 108 

Recording Assignments, Security Interests, and Other Copyright Documents .................................................................................................... 108 

Registration ............................................................................................... 108 

Statutory Licenses ..................................................................................... 109 

Challenges of the Current Fiscal Environment ............................................. 110 

Government Accountability Office ........................................................... 111 

Staffing and Appointments ....................................................................... 110 

Technical Upgrades Special Project ......................................................... 111 

Copyright Office Within the Library of Congress .......................................... 119 

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request ................................................................... 107 

Library of Congress Synergies ......................................................................... 121 

Resources and Organizational Location of Copyright ................................... 120 

Statutory Authority to Set Fees ...................................................................... 111 

Supporting the Congress and Federal Agencies ............................................ 109 

Copyright Policy and the Digital Economy ............................................. 109 

Policy Reports of the Copyright Office ..................................................... 110 

Veterans History Project (VHP) ............................................................................. 101 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

2016 Budget Request ............................................................................................... 160 

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) ................................................................. 160 

Board Members Agenda .......................................................................................... 160 

Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) ................................................................ 160 

Contributions to the Safety of Congressional Workplaces Through Its OSH 

Biennial Inspections and OSH Case Work ........................................................ 160 

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) .......................................................................... 160 

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ........................................................................ 160 

Full-time Equivalents .............................................................................................. 160 

Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) Specialists .............................................. 160 

Program of Education for Members of Congress and Other Employing Authorities of the Legislative Branch ..................................................................... 160 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 90 

Cell Phone Policy ..................................................................................................... 85 

Drones and Defense Tactics .................................................................................... 83 

Expenses Account .................................................................................................... 91 

Hearing Security ...................................................................................................... 86 

Overtime ................................................................................................................... 88 

Percentage of Female Officers ................................................................................ 79 
Page

177 

Policy Regarding the Use of Personal Cell Phones, Personal Smart Phones, 

or Other Personal Electronic Devices While on Duty ....................................... 92 

Directive 1701.001, Uniforms and Equipment, Operational Directive UNF 

1.1, Uniforms, Equipment and Personal Grooming ................................... 93 

Personal Pagers/Phones/Communication Devices ................................... 93 

Discipline Process for Rank and File Officers ................................. 93 

Example of a Typical Process for a Violation ........................... 93 

Directive 2053.013. Rules of Conduct: Rule B10 ........................................... 92 

Rule B10: Neglect of Duty ........................................................................ 92 

Potential Impact of Sequester Levels In Fiscal Year 2016 .................................. 79 

Preparation for Pope Francis Visit ......................................................................... 82 

Public Access Policies and Procedures ................................................................... 84 

U.S. Capitol Police Morale ...................................................................................... 78 

USCP Policy Regarding the Use of Personal Cell Phones, Personal Smart 

Phones, or Other Personal Electronic Devices While on Duty ......................... 92 

Directive 1701.001, Uniforms and Equipment, Operational Directive UNF 

1.1, Uniforms, Equipment and Personal Grooming ................................... 93 

Personal Pagers/Phones/Communication Devices ................................... 93 

Discipline Process for Rank and File Officers ................................. 93 

Example of a Typical Process for a Violation ........................... 93 

Directive 2053.013. Rules of Conduct: Rule B10 ........................................... 92 

Rule B10: Neglect of Duty ........................................................................ 92 

U.S. SENATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 90 

Administrative and Executive Operations ............................................................. 51 

Conservation and Preservation ....................................................................... 51 

Curator .............................................................................................................. 52 

Education and Training ................................................................................... 52 

Gift Shop ........................................................................................................... 53 

Historical Office ................................................................................................ 53 

Human Resources ............................................................................................. 54 

Information Systems ........................................................................................ 54 

Interparliamentary Services ............................................................................ 54 

Legislative Information System (LIS) Project Office ..................................... 54 

Library ............................................................................................................... 55 

Page School ....................................................................................................... 55 

Printing and Document Services ..................................................................... 56 

Public Records ................................................................................................... 56 

Senate Chief Counsel for Employment ........................................................... 51 

Stationery Room ............................................................................................... 57 

Web Technology ................................................................................................ 57 

Budget Request ........................................................................................................ 43 

Office of the Secretary Apportionment Schedule—Table .............................. 43 

Project Request—FMIS Modernization Project .............................................. 44 

Emergency Preparedness and Continuity Planning ............................................. 58 

Financial: 

Management Information System (FMIS) Modernization Project ............... 44 

Additional Funding Required for Software and Implementation Services .......................................................................................................... 45 

Major Phases and Timeline of the Proposed Modernization Effort— 

Table........................................................................................................ 44, 45 

Operations ......................................................................................................... 51 

Disbursing Office ....................................................................................... 51 

Implementing Mandated Systems .......................................................................... 46 

Update on Current Status of: 

Financial Management Information System (FMIS) .............................. 46 

Legislative Information System (LIS) Project ......................................... 46 

Legislative Services ................................................................................................. 47 

Bill Clerk ........................................................................................................... 48 

Captioning Services .......................................................................................... 48 

Daily Digest ...................................................................................................... 48 

Enrolling Clerk ................................................................................................. 48 

Executive Clerk ................................................................................................ 49 
Page

178 

Legislative Services—Continued 

Journal Clerk .................................................................................................... 49 

Legislative Clerk ............................................................................................... 49 

Official Reporters of Debates ........................................................................... 50 

Parliamentarian ................................................................................................ 50 

SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 90 

Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 70 

Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2016—Table ................................................... 70 

Capitol Operations ................................................................................................... 67 

Daily Press Gallery .......................................................................................... 68 

Office of Internal Communications ................................................................. 69 

Periodical Press Gallery ................................................................................... 68 

Press Photographers Gallery ........................................................................... 68 

Radio and Television Gallery ........................................................................... 68 

Senate: 

Appointment Desk ..................................................................................... 68 

Doorkeepers ............................................................................................... 68 

Media Galleries ......................................................................................... 67 

Recording Studio ....................................................................................... 67 

Employee Assistance Program ................................................................................ 70 

Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2016—Table .......................................................... 70 

Information Technology ........................................................................................... 62 

Active Directory—ID System Integration and Photo Display ...................... 64 

Constituent Correspondence Services ............................................................. 65 

Data Center Management ............................................................................... 63 

Evaluating New Technologies ......................................................................... 63 

Microsoft Lync 2013 ......................................................................................... 64 

Network Operations ......................................................................................... 63 

Office Application Manager ............................................................................. 64 

Replacing Switches ........................................................................................... 63 

Senate: 

IT Network Security and Response ......................................................... 62 

Messaging and Authentication Services (SMAS) .................................... 64 

Payroll System (SPS) ................................................................................ 63 

Systems Management Service (SMS) ............................................................. 64 

Telecommunications ......................................................................................... 65 

TransSAAct—Our Platform for Doing Business Online ................................ 64 

Office of the Sergeant at Arms—United States Senate ........................................ 70 

Operations ................................................................................................................ 65 

Capitol Facilities ............................................................................................... 67 

Central Operations ........................................................................................... 65 

Office Support Services .................................................................................... 67 

Parking Operations .......................................................................................... 65 

Photography Studio .......................................................................................... 66 

Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail ............................................................... 66 

Senate Post Office ............................................................................................ 66 

Transportation and Fleet Operations ............................................................. 66 

Protective Services and Continuity ........................................................................ 61 

Contingency Programs ..................................................................................... 62 

Emergency Preparedness ................................................................................. 61 

Security Planning and Police Operations ....................................................... 62 

SAA Human Resources ........................................................................................... 69 

Senate Placement Office .................................................................................. 69 

Senate Office of Education and Training ............................................................... 69 

Health Promotion ............................................................................................. 70 

Æ