<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:26434.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-302, Pt. 2
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Legislative Branch
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2007
109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
H.R. 5521
PART 2
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
U.S. SENATE
S. Hrg. 109-302, Pt. 2
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5521
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 2
Architect of the Capitol (except House items)
Capitol Guide Board
Congressional Budget Office
Government Accountability Office
Government Printing Office
Library of Congress
Office of Compliance
U.S. Capitol Police Board
U.S. Senate
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
congress/index.html
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-434 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Carolyn E. Apostolou
Terrence E. Sauvain (Minority)
Drew Willison (Minority)
Nancy Olkewicz (Minority)
Administrative Support
Sarah Wilson
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Library of Congress.............................................. 1
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
U.S. Senate: Office of the Secretary............................. 75
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 141
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
U.S. Senate: Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper..................... 167
U.S. Capitol Police Board........................................ 199
Capitol Guide Board.............................................. 217
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Government Accountability Office................................. 223
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Office of Compliance............................................. 269
Government Printing Office....................................... 295
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 309
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:27 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF
CONGRESS; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, OPEN WORLD
LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DONALD L. SCOTT, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
JULIA HUFF, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE
KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, BOOKS FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY
HANDICAPPED
KARL SCHORNAGEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL
statement of senator wayne allard
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. I am
going to do the unprecedented thing and get us started ahead of
time, ahead of schedule. I am told we have our witnesses here,
everybody of interest that is going to be present for the
hearing. So we will go ahead and get you seated for the
proceeding, and we will start out with my making a few comments
and then we will call on the first panelist to make their
presentation.
We meet today to take testimony from Dr. James Billington,
Librarian of Congress, on the Library's budget request for
fiscal year 2007. We welcome Dr. Billington, who is accompanied
by Deputy Librarian Don Scott, and the Library's top team. The
request for appropriation totals $588 million, along with
offsetting collections of $40 million, for a total budget of
$628 million, an increase of about 4 percent over this year's
budget.
This is a relatively modest request and we appreciate that
you have not requested a large number of new projects and
initiatives. However, within the Architect of the Capitol's
(AOC) budget a total of $102 million is requested for Library
buildings and grounds, including a new $54 million logistics
warehouse for the Library. This appropriation request
represents a 50 percent increase over the fiscal year 2006
budget for Library buildings and grounds and will be very tough
to accommodate.
In particular, questions have been raised as to whether the
design for the warehouse is gold-plated and whether more cost-
effective alternatives have been explored thoroughly.
Other issues we would like to be updated on today include
the status of the new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center
(NAVCC) in Culpeper, Virginia, which I had the opportunity to
visit in December; plans for converting the books for the blind
and physically handicapped to digital format; and the ongoing
realignment of the Congressional Research Service.
Dr. Billington will also submit testimony for the record as
chairman of the Open World Leadership Center. This program is
slated for a $14.4 million budget, a $540,000 increase of 4
percent over the 2006 level.
Those are my opening comments. Now we will go to the panel
that we have before us. I will call on Dr. Billington for his
testimony, and also welcome General Scott. It is good to have
you with us this morning.
opening statement of the librarian
Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate the opportunity to present the Library of Congress
fiscal 2007 budget request to the subcommittee. I have provided
details of the Library's accomplishments and goals in my
written statement. We have approached this budget submission
keenly aware of the fiscal challenges that this subcommittee,
as well as the Congress as a whole, faces, Mr. Chairman.
The Congress and the Library faces unprecedented challenges
itself if it is to sustain in the exploding digital age its
historic mission of acquiring, preserving, and making
accessible the world's largest and most globally inclusive
collection of human knowledge. That mission has never been more
important for our service to the Congress or for our overall
national needs than it is now in the midst of the information
age and the globalization process.
workforce transformation
In order to sustain high-quality services at a time of
radical change in the ways knowledge is communicated and
developed, the Library must undertake an institutional
workforce transformation. Sixty-five percent of our budget is
for people; 40 percent of our workforce will be eligible to
retire by the year 2010. We need knowledge navigators imbued
with a new set of skills, in many cases capable of seamlessly
integrating digital materials with books and other traditional
artifactual items, books and so forth, in order to provide
users with comprehensive and objective knowledge that is
useable and the practical wisdom that has always been a part of
our democratic function.
The Library is already leading the national effort to
archive the Internet, an enormous task, and we must help
develop standards for the electronic sharing of bibliographic
records, just as the Library has historically done for the
print world with its cataloguing records.
Incidentally, we catalogued more than 313,000 books and
periodicals last year, more than ever before in the Library's
history. So the traditional needs continue as the digital
demands explode.
The Library must begin its transformation of functions,
facilities, and people with the reallocation of existing
resources. Our current process of analysis and planning adheres
to the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and we will produce in calendar year 2007 a
comprehensive strategic plan from which the budget submission
for fiscal year 2009 will be derived, and the extended nature
of resource needs for 2013 will be outlined. This planning
process is already informing our budget process, but that is
the schedule on which it will be formally implemented.
national audio-visual conservation center--culpeper
The 4.1 percent increase we request for fiscal 2007 is
almost entirely for mandatory pay and price level increases.
Our fiscal year 2007 request for the National Audio-Visual
Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia, represents a
decrease of $1.2 million from the fiscal year 2006 request.
This project is progressing well. We expect to complete
construction and begin moving collections and staff in May of
this year.
The unique facility will allow us to preserve more quickly
and effectively hundreds of thousands of items in our
audiovisual collection that are a critically important part of
America's cultural heritage, but very vulnerable to degradation
and very much in need of calibrated conservation, which we will
be able to provide with the largest and most up to date such
facility in the world.
This project would not have been possible without the
financial support of the Congress and an unusually generous
private funding from David Woodley Packard and the Packard
Humanities Institute.
acquisitions budget request
We are very grateful for the additional resources we were
provided in the past two fiscal years for acquisitions, but we
are still falling behind in our all-important current
acquisitions, which is the absolute core requirement of this
institution so that it can properly serve the Congress and the
Nation.
In fiscal year 2007 I respectfully but urgently ask that
the Congress continue supporting our acquisitions with an
additional $2 million. These funds will allow us to continue
collecting materials that we uniquely bring from all areas of
the world, particularly from lesser known and lesser understood
regions that are becoming increasingly important for our
Nation, both for economic and security needs. It is important
that we sustain the schedule that we have established and have
been falling behind on for acquisitions.
other budget priorities
But beyond these two important ongoing priorities, we have
limited our budget request to three new projects, all of which
total less than $2 million: $1 million for the Copyright Office
to begin a record preservation project, an initiative requested
by Congress in fiscal 2005; $781,000 to begin our workforce
transformation by enhancing the staff digital competencies,
career development, and recruitment; and $150,000 to begin
preparing a major exhibition in 2009 marking the bicentennial
of Abraham Lincoln's birth. This total project will cost $1.4
million, will include a traveling exhibit, and will be a major
effort for this important milestone.
logistics center
Let me mention finally, as you brought up, the request in
the Architect of the Capitol's budget for $54.2 million to
construct a Library logistics center at Fort Meade. I
understand and sympathize with the subcommittee's concern
regarding the cost of this facility and I will be working with
the Architect of the Capitol to find ways to reduce its cost.
This facility is critically needed for the Library's day to day
distribution and logistics needs and will provide a long-term
cost saving to the Government by consolidating costly and
outmoded storage space from three locations into one modern,
safer and more secure location.
prepared statements
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statements of James H. Billington
library of congress
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the past accomplishments and future goals of the Library of Congress in
the context of our fiscal year 2007 budget request. I would like to
thank this Committee for the strong support it has always shown the
Library's programs, and I ask for your support again to ensure that the
Library maintains its prestigious place as the world's largest
repository of human knowledge and the main research arm of the United
States Congress.
With all the unique distinction that this institution has achieved
in the print world, it now faces the unprecedented challenge of
sustaining its leadership amidst the revolutionary changes of the
digital world. Information-seekers now have many (and often more
convenient) ways of finding what they need. But they are often
overwhelmed or misled by the profusion of unfiltered and often
inaccurate information on the World Wide Web. The Library of Congress
must redefine its role in this new environment. This institution-wide
process is now underway--and will be embedded in the new strategic plan
that we are developing for the entire Library for 2008-2013.
The budget request we have submitted to you includes the following
basic assumptions:
--The Library of Congress must continue to build comprehensive,
world-wide collections in all formats so that Members of
Congress, scholars, school students, and the American people
will have access to valid, high-quality information for their
work, their research, and their civic participation.
--A comprehensive institutional workforce transformation will be
required for staff to continue providing the highest levels of
service to the Congress and to the public.
--There is no change in the Library's historic mission of acquiring,
preserving, and making its materials accessible and useful to
the Congress and the nation. The aim is to blend the new
digital materials into the traditional artifactual collections
so that knowledge and information can be objectively and
comprehensively provided by an integrated library.
--The transformation of functions, of facilities, and of people must
begin with a reallocation of existing resources. The current
process of analysis and planning will produce, in the course of
calendar 2006, the strategic plan that will determine the
extent and nature of resource needs for future budget
submissions.
the library of congress of today
Library of Congress collections are made up of more than 132
million artifactual items in more than 470 languages including: 30
million books (among them more than 5,000 printed before the year
1500); 14 million photographs; 5.2 million maps; 3 million audio
materials; 981,000 films, television, and video items; 5.3 million
pieces of music; 59 million manuscripts; and hundreds of thousands of
scientific and government documents.
And these collections continue to grow. More than 13,000 items are
added to the Library's collections every day. These materials are
organized, cataloged, and served to readers in on-site reading rooms
and through cultural programs and exhibitions. A steadily increasing
number of materials are made available free of charge on the Internet.
The Library's collections gather in not only regularly published
materials, but arcane reports that have limited distribution,
international ephemera that illuminate other cultures and socio-
political movements, and special collections that have been carefully
assessed by our curators and acquired by our donors. Among the many new
materials acquired by the Library in fiscal year 2005 are:
--The unique Jay I. Kislak Collection of nearly 4,000 items
documenting the early history of the Americas.
--38,555 individual oral histories collected from interviews with
U.S. war veterans.
--Original music manuscripts of Felix Mendelssohn, Jerome Kern,
George Gershwin, and Woody Guthrie.
--The Bernard Krisher Collection, containing 450 taped interviews
with Asian dignitaries documenting major developments in Asia
from 1962-1983.
--The personal and professional papers of the late Chief Executive
Officer and Publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham.
--The Cuban Exile Collection, 234 microfilm reels of materials
documenting the Cuban-American experience.
--Factiva, a full-text online database of publications and up-to-the
minute reports and news focusing on global developments and
business from 118 countries in 22 languages.
--A collection of 454 charts of the coast of China from the Chinese
Navy Headquarters, the Navigation Guarantee Department. A
complete set of modern hydrographic charts of the Chinese
coastline and areas of the South China Sea.
--The American Colony of Jerusalem Collection, a Christian society
formed in Jerusalem in 1881 by an American, Horatio Gates
Spafford, and his wife Anna Lawson Spafford.
Library of Congress services include:
--Fulfilling our priority mission of service to the Congress through
the objective research and analysis done exclusively for the
Congress by the Congressional Research Service. Our Law Library
also largely serves the Congress. Overall, the Library provides
a wide range of services from analysis on current public policy
issues to responses to constituent requests.
--In fiscal year 2005, the Library performed the following major
services to the Congress and its constituents:
--Delivered more than 900,000 replies to members of Congress,
covering nearly 200 current policy areas and providing
access to 1,400 regularly updated research products.
--Registered about 532,000 copyright claims.
--Circulated nearly 24 million books and magazines free of charge
to the blind and physically handicapped.
--Assisted local libraries all over the nation by cataloging nearly
313,000 books and serials--the highest number in the
Library's history.
Library of Congress digital leadership includes:
--Providing free internet access to its entire catalog, to more than
10 million primary documents of American history and culture,
to a growing body of similarly unique and multi-medial
materials from six other major national libraries, and to
extensive information about the Congress. In fiscal year 2005,
our web site, www.loc.gov, recorded more than 3.8 billion
hits--a 14 percent increase in usage over fiscal year 2004.
--Coordinating the development and implementation of a comprehensive
national plan mandated by the Congress for preserving important
but often ephemeral materials on the Internet. The Library has
enlisted eight national consortia involving 36 institutions
across the country to share in this massive project. The
Library has already collected 128 terabytes; and our partners
are expected to collect an estimated 100 terabytes. The
materials include digital maps, photographs, TV programming,
news, and datasets.
building the library for the future
The Library's Vision and Strategic Plan
The Library's vision is to sustain in the digital world of the 21st
century its historic mission of acquiring, preserving, and making
maximally accessible to the public and useful for the Congress a
universal collection of human knowledge. The challenge now is to bring
the best of the traditional library into the digital environment. This
will require holding fast to the principles of equitable access and
long-term preservation while seamlessly integrating new digital
materials with traditional artifactual items and helping develop
standards and protocols for the electronic sharing of bibliographic
records just as the Library did for the print world with its cataloging
records.
The Library has developed a Library-wide framework for program
assessment of every division and support office. Congressional support
has already enabled us to reengineer copyright functions and to create
a National Audio-Visual Conservation Center. And we are developing new
roles for key staff to become objective ``knowledge navigators'' who
can make knowledge useful from both the artifactual and the digital
world.
The institution is undertaking a comprehensive strategic planning
process that adheres to the spirit of GPRA and will guide us in what
will have to be a major transformation of our workforce. We must find
ways to transfer the widely recognized skills of our best traditional
librarians on to the more broadly and democratically accessible Web and
into K-12 education which is making increasing use of the Library's
online resources. We must continue to integrate and be open to new
technology and best business practices library-wide--and to maximize
fairness and diversity in building the workforce of the future.
This work will continue in fiscal year 2006, culminating in a
comprehensive new strategic plan for fiscal year 2008-2013, from which
all future budget requests will be derived. Our fiscal year 2007
request already reflects the Library's improved strategic planning
process and has led us to ask for no new additional FTEs and a
historically low 4 percent budgetary increase despite the many
challenges that the Library will face in fiscal year 2007.
the library's fiscal year 2007 budget request
In fiscal year 2007, the Library requests a total budget of
$628.465 million ($588.131 million in net appropriations and $40.334
million in authority to use receipts), an increase of $24.842 million
or 4.1 percent above the fiscal year 2006 level. The total includes
$23.969 million in mandatory pay and price level increases and $4.896
million in program increases, offset by $4.023 million in non-recurring
costs.
Requested funding supports 4,258 full-time equivalents (FTEs), a
net decrease of 44 FTEs below the fiscal year 2006 level of 4,302.
The Library's programs and activities are funded by four salaries
and expenses (S&E) appropriations which support management of the
Library, the National and Law Library Services, Copyright
administration, Congressional Research Service, and Library Services to
the Blind and Physically Handicapped.
Fiscal year 2007 funding is allocated as follows:
--Library of Congress, S&E ($409.294 million/2,902 FTEs), which
includes:
--National Library ($312.590 million/2,264 FTEs)
--National Library--Basic
--Purchase of Library Materials (GENPAC)
--Office of Strategic Initiatives
--Cataloging Distribution Service
--Law Library ($14.026 million/101 FTEs)
--Management Support Services ($82.723 million/537 FTEs)
--Copyright Office, S&E ($59.189 million/523 FTEs)
--Congressional Research Service, S&E ($104.279 million/705 FTEs)
--Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, S&E ($55.703
million/128 FTEs)
the library's funding priorities
Mandatory Pay and Price Level Increases
The Library is requesting an additional $23.969 million to maintain
current services. This is the amount needed to support the
annualization of the fiscal year 2006 pay raise, the fiscal year 2007
pay raise, within grade increases, and unavoidable inflation and vendor
price increases. These funds are needed simply to sustain current
business operations and to prevent a reduction in staff that would
severely affect the Library's ability to manage its programs in support
of its mission and strategic objectives.
Unfunded Mandates
The Library is requesting $2.171 million for one unfunded mandate:
the Department of State (DOS) Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program.
In fiscal year 2005, the DOS, mandated by the Executive branch,
began its 14-year program to finance the construction of approximately
150 embassy compounds, requiring increasing contributions from all
agencies with an overseas presence, including the Library. The Library
has argued that the DOS methodology for assessing agencies is unfair
since it is based on the number of overseas personnel rather than on
actual services or space provided by DOS in diplomatic facilities. The
Library's yearly assessment was $1.2 million in fiscal year 2005 and
$2.4 million in fiscal year 2006. The proposed bill for fiscal year
2007 is $4.572 million, an increase of $2.171 million. If funding is
not provided for the next phase of the program, the Library will have
insufficient resources to operate its overseas offices. This would
result in the curtailment--and in some cases termination--of
international acquisitions programs in areas that are of increasing
importance to the nation (Islamabad, Cairo, Jakarta, Nairobi, New Delhi
and Rio de Janeiro). The Library continues to negotiate with the DOS
and will alert the Committees if DOS agrees to any downward adjustments
of their assessment.
Major Ongoing Projects
The Library is requesting $794,000 for two ongoing major projects
that are either in their last year of development or on a time-
sensitive schedule that must be maintained if the entire project is to
succeed.
--National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC), Culpeper, VA.--A
five-year plan for the completion of NAVCC was included in the
Library's fiscal year 2004 budget. Fiscal year 2007 represents
the fourth year in the Library's five-year cost model, which is
adjusted annually to align with shifts in the construction
schedule of the Packard Humanities Institute and the Library's
occupancy schedule. In 2005, the Phase 1 Central Plant was
turned over to the AOC and the Collections Building to the
Library. In 2006, construction will be completed and the entire
property transferred to the government. Staff relocations will
take place, as will the procurement and integration of digital
preservation equipment and systems within the NAVCC's audio-
visual conservation facility. Funding is needed in fiscal year
2007 to continue purchasing equipment for the facility as well
as for operations support. Total requested fiscal year 2007
funding of $13.9 million reflects a net decrease of $1.206
million and -6 FTEs from fiscal year 2006.
--Acquisitions (GENPAC/Electronic Materials).--Advances in technology
have opened opportunities for the Library to acquire materials
from parts of the world about which, until recently, there had
been little knowledge. National interest, especially with
respect to security and trade, dictates that we acquire
emerging electronic publications and other difficult-to-find
resources that document other cultures and nations. The GENPAC
appropriation, which funds the purchase of all-important
current collections materials, declined precipitously in its
purchasing power during the 1990s. Consistent with our fiscal
year 2005-2006 budget requests for a multi-year, $4.2 million
base increase to the GENPAC budget, the Library is requesting
the next incremental adjustment of $2 million, which will bring
the total base adjustment up to $3.3 million. Funding is needed
to help keep pace with the greatly increased cost of serial and
electronic materials that risks seriously eroding the
foundation of the many services provided by the Library to the
Congress and the nation.
New Projects
The Library is requesting $1.931 million for three new critical
initiatives as follows:
--Copyright Records Preservation.--A six-year, $6 million initiative
is needed to image digitally 70 million pages of pre-1978
public records that are deteriorating, jeopardizing the
mandatory preservation of, and access to, these unique records
of American creativity. In fiscal year 2007, the Library is
requesting the first $1 million, which will permit the scanning
of 10 million page images.
--Workforce Transformation Project.--Renewal and development of the
Library workforce is essential to retrain staff with the
necessary skills for the digital age, and to capture for the
future the vast knowledge of large numbers of experienced staff
who are near retirement. In fiscal year 2007, the Library will
begin a program to enhance digital competencies, leadership
skills, career development, recruitment, and other workforce
counseling and services. These activities are particularly
important for sustaining the Library's commitment to a diverse
workforce. Funding of $781,000 is requested, and will support
initiatives to:
--Define and develop digital competencies
--Build an aspiring leaders program for GS 5-9 employees
--Enhance Library-wide training through the Center for Learning and
Development
--Create a summer intern recruitment program and a talent pool for
permanent employment
--Expand interpreting services.
--Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition.--The Library is planning a
major Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition in 2009. The
exhibition will be a centerpiece of the nationwide celebration
to mark the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth. The Library will
draw on its unparalleled Lincoln materials to focus on
Lincoln's rise to national prominence and the thinking and
writing that underlie his career. A total of $1.442 million
will be needed for this project, of which $150,000 is requested
in fiscal year 2007. The balance of $1.292 million will be
requested in fiscal year 2008. Multi-year (3 year) authority is
requested for the fiscal year 2007 funding. Funding will
support the design of the exhibition and travel needed to visit
other venues and/or other institutions that will be lending
materials to the Library exhibition.
Other Program Changes
Congress created and passed the Library of Congress Digital
Collections and Educational Curricula Act of 2005. Beginning in fiscal
year 2006, the Act moved the administrative and programmatic ownership
of the Adventure of the American Mind (AAM) from the Educational and
Research Consortium to the Library.
While no additional funding is requested in fiscal year 2007 for
the Library's new AAM National Program, the Library is requesting a
change in the way the base funding of $5.801 million is used. Whereas
this entire amount was earmarked for grants in fiscal year 2006, we
would like the fiscal year 2007 funding to support both administrative
($1.791 million) needs and grant awards ($4.01 million). In addition,
the Library will begin developing standards-based, field-tested
curricula, using a train-the-trainer model to create a network of
partners from all parts of the country.
architect of the capitol--library of congress buildings and grounds
The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library's
buildings and grounds. In coordination with the Library, the AOC is
requesting an fiscal year 2007 budget of $102.2 million, of which
$62.265 million supports projects specifically requested by the
Library. Included is $54.2 million to construct a 166,000 square foot
logistics warehouse at Fort Meade, replacing and consolidating current
long-term and temporary facilities leased and maintained by the
Library.
The significant increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget request
level is the result of deferring maintenance and upgrades to the
Library's buildings on Capitol Hill and the delays in the Fort Meade
construction plan. Costs are higher because more maintenance and
upgrade projects need to be completed concurrently. Deferments and
delays have created longer lists of projects. The cost increase is
compounded by inflationary pressures and by the steadily growing risks
in health, safety, and security to the Library's staff and collections.
The cost of maintenance and upgrades will increase exponentially if the
Library cannot stop, or at least slow down, the rate of deterioration
of its buildings, and return to its construction plan and schedule.
proposed changes to legislative language
The Library has proposed language to improve employment options
elsewhere in the Federal Government for Library staff. The first
provision confers competitive status to Library employees who have
successfully completed their probationary period at the Library--the
basic eligibility to be noncompetitively selected to fill vacancies in
the competitive service of the Federal Government. This will enable
Library staff to apply for positions in the executive branch on an
equal footing with ``career'' executive branch employees. A related
provision would enhance the employability of Library employees
displaced because of a reduction in force (RIF) or failure to accept a
transfer to an alternative work location. This provision would give
staff who have been separated, priority for selection for competitive
service positions comparable to that enjoyed by separated employees
from other federal agencies.
We also propose new appropriation language to address the
requirement specified in the Cooperative Acquisitions Program Revolving
Fund legislation (CAP), Public Law 105-55, that the revolving fund
receive its own audit by March 31 following the end of each fiscal
year. The Library requests that the March 31 audit requirement be
rescinded and that the CAP be subject to the same audit requirement as
the Library's other revolving funds.
The fiscal year 2006 administrative provision limiting the
Library's assessment for embassy construction to equal to or less than
the unreimbursed value of the services provided to the Library on State
Department diplomatic facilities must also be maintained in fiscal year
2007.
conclusion
The Library of Congress' priorities expressed in the fiscal year
2007 budget request have a common theme: that of enhancing and
transforming the staff, the collections they manage, and the buildings
that house them. These requests will make it possible for the Library
to improve the quality of its service in keeping with the high ideal of
a knowledge-based democracy and a creativity-enhancing society. This
budget will help us prepare for the many changes needed to sustain and
expand the opportunities for a free people to benefit from an open and
universal stream of knowledge and information. The Library looks
forward to working with and for the Congress as we seek to build these
opportunities in fiscal year 2007, and in the years ahead.
______
open world leadership center
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony on the Open World Leadership Center's
budget request for fiscal year 2007. The Center, whose board of
trustees I chair, conducts the only foreign-visitor program in the U.S.
legislative branch and sponsors the largest U.S.-Russia inbound
exchange. All of us at Open World are very grateful for our home and
support in the legislative branch and for congressional participation
in our programs and on our governing board. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act passed in December 2004 made the chair of this
subcommittee ex officio a member of Open World's board, and my fellow
trustees and I are pleased and honored to have you join us, Mr.
Chairman. We look forward to working with you as we make important
decisions on the future of Open World.
During an important year of assessment and change, the Board and
staff began to review all aspects of the program in order to produce in
fiscal year 2006 a comprehensive strategic plan for the future. This
review is being led by Board member James Collins, who played a key
role in launching the program when he was Ambassador to Russia.
Geraldine Otremba completed her outstanding leadership of the able
and dedicated staff of the Center in September 2005. Aletta Waterhouse,
who had also done great work with the program from its beginning,
served very well as Interim Executive Director. The Board will name a
new Executive Director in early spring of 2006.
The Center's budget request of $14.4 million (Appendix A) for
fiscal year 2007 reflects an increase of $0.54 million (4.0 percent)
over fiscal year 2006 funding. This funding will enable the Center to
continue its proven mission of hosting young leaders from Russia;
expand its important program for Ukraine; and conduct smaller programs
for such other countries as the Board of Trustees will approve in
consultation with the Appropriations Committees. The budget increase
over fiscal year 2006 is due to increases of salaries and benefits (11
percent of increase), airfares and impact of changing exchange rates
(60 percent of increase), and domestic transportation, per diem and
other programmatic costs (29 percent).
In 2005, Open World welcomed its 10,000th participant in its sixth
year of operation. We began calendar year 2005 by organizing a major
post-Orange Revolution exchange to six U.S. states for Ukrainian
judges, election experts, NGO managers, and journalists. We ended the
year with a local-government study tour in Maine for a delegation from
the Solovetsky Islands, home to one of the Soviet Union's first prison
camps and one of Russia's greatest monasteries.
Open World brought 1,552 Russians and Ukrainians to the United
States in calendar 2005 to work with their American counterparts while
experiencing our democracy and civil society. The Chief Justice of the
Russian Supreme Court had planning sessions at the U.S. Supreme Court
on U.S.-Russian judicial cooperation; two teams of Russian child-trauma
experts helping Beslan victims consulted with Pennsylvania social
agencies on their mental and social support services, and a delegation
of Ukrainian journalists shared their experiences during the Orange
Revolution at a forum in Cincinnati.
Open World's plans for calendar year 2006 include programs on
accountable governance for officials from municipalities created under
Russia's recent law on local self-governance; expanding our two-year-
old exchange for Ukrainian leaders; and providing programs on elections
to both Russian and Ukrainian leaders. We will also continue our rule
of law program, which has benefited so much from the involvement of
U.S. Supreme Court justices and many other prominent members of the
American judiciary, including Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B.
Brooks of Denver, Colorado, and U.S. District Judge Michael M. Mihm of
Peoria, Illinois. As I discuss below, this calendar year the Center's
board--in consultation with the members of the Appropriations
Committees--must also make important decisions about whether and where
Open World should expand in Eurasia.
Program Leadership
Senator Ted Stevens (AK) serves as honorary chairman of the Open
World Leadership Center's board. The congressionally appointed members
are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Senator Carl Levin (MI),
and Representative Robert E. ``Bud'' Cramer (AL). The second
congressionally appointed seat reserved for a member of the House of
Representatives is currently vacant. Public Law 108-447, as amended by
Public Law 109-13, added to the Board the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives or designee and the
chair of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia James F.
Collins, Walter Scott, Jr., Chairman of Level 3 Communications, former
Representative Amo Houghton, and former U.S. Ambassador to Spain George
Argyros are the current citizen members. I sit on the Board in my
capacity as Librarian of Congress, and I currently serve as chairman.
The Board of Trustees met on December 5, 2005, and reviewed the budget
request and program plans presented below.
Program Objectives:
Open World program enhances professional relationships and
understanding between political and civic leaders of participating
countries and the United States. It is designed to enable emerging
young leaders from the selected countries to:
--build mutual understanding with their U.S. counterparts and share
approaches to common challenges;
--observe U.S. government, business, volunteer, and community leaders
carrying out their daily responsibilities;
--experience how the separation of powers, checks and balances,
freedom of the press, and other key elements of America's
democratic system make the government more accountable and
transparent;
--develop an understanding of the U.S. free enterprise system;
--learn how U.S. citizens organize and take initiative to address
social and civic needs;
--participate in American family and community activities; and
--establish lasting professional and personal ties with their U.S.
hosts and counterparts.
Open World provides the highest-caliber program for the U.S. visit
so that Open World participants return to their countries with a
meaningful understanding of America's democracy and market economy.
Open World has refined and focused on a few key themes central to
democracy-building in order to improve the quality and focus of the
U.S. program.
The catalytic effect of the 10-day U.S. stay is extended by
fostering continued post-visit communication between participants and
their American hosts and contacts, their fellow Open World alumni, and
alumni of other USG-sponsored exchange programs.
In calendar 2005, Russian alumni participated in 168 interregional
conferences, workshops, meetings, and professional seminars sponsored
by Open World. A major conference for the program's Lithuanian alumni
was held in the capital city of Vilnius, and three events were held for
alumni in Ukraine.
Open World's multilingual website with online forums (and assisted
Russian/English translation for cross-cultural communication) helps
maintain communication among delegates, American hosts, and other
interested parties. Open World also operates two listservs for Russian
alumni, one with news of grants, competitions, and other sources of
financial support, the other with weekly updates on Open World news and
announcements and opportunities for cooperation and partnership with
fellow alumni. All alumni activities and the website are supported
through private funding.
Measures of Success
In addition to conducting the qualitative assessments described
above, the Center also tracks quantitative program performance measures
to ensure that Open World is meeting its mission of focusing on a
geographically and professionally broad cross-section of emerging
leaders who might not otherwise have the opportunity to visit the
United States:
--Delegates have come from all the political regions of Russia and
virtually all those of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Uzbekistan.
--84 percent of Russian participants live outside Moscow and St.
Petersburg.
--More than 5,000 federal, regional, and local government officials
have participated, including 156 members of parliament and 935
judges.
--The average age of Open World delegates is 38.
--92 percent of delegates are first-time visitors to the United
States.
--Only 12.5 percent of delegates report having ``above average'' or
better English-language skills. (Several U.S. exchange programs
require some English-language skills. By not requiring
knowledge of English, Open World is able to choose from a much
larger candidate pool of young leaders. Interpretation is
provided for all Open World delegations.)
--49 percent of delegates are women. (Women did not have significant
leadership opportunities in the Soviet Union.)
--The distribution of delegates among Russia's seven ``super-
regions'' roughly matches that of the country's general
population.
Open World in America
Open World delegates are hosted by a large and dedicated group of
American citizens who live in cities, towns, and rural communities
throughout the United States:
--Since Open World's inception in 1999, more than 5,300 U.S. families
have hosted participants in more than 1,500 communities in all
50 states.
--In 2005, the 204 locally based Open World host organizations in 147
congressional districts included universities and community
colleges, library systems, Rotary clubs and other service
organizations, sister-city associations, courts, and
nonprofits.
American hosts' generosity toward and enthusiasm for Open World are
a mainstay of the program. In 2005, interested host communities' demand
for Open World visitors exceeded supply by 34 percent. Americans'
enthusiasm for the Open World Program is reflected in their generous
giving. In 2005, Americans gave an estimated $1.9 million worth of in-
kind contributions through volunteer home hosting of delegates, a ratio
of one dollar in contributions for every seven dollars in appropriated
funds.
Visiting delegates, in turn, have impacted American communities by
sharing ideas with their professional counterparts, university faculty
and students, governors and state legislators, American war veterans,
and other American citizens in a variety of forums such as group
discussions, Rotary Club breakfasts, and town hall meetings.
During a 2005 Open World visit to Appleton, Wisconsin, for example,
a Russian delegate from Kurgan Region, which borders Kazakhstan,
proposed an idea at a Rotary club event. Since there were so many World
War II veterans in attendance, the delegate suggested an exchange of
letters between Wisconsin World War II veterans and their Kurgan
counterparts. One such letter from a member of the Appleton-Kurgan
Sister City Program reads, in part:
``WWII efforts created a significant result in history and provided
a great victory which was achieved with the help of the Russians for
the benefit of the world. Many people, especially among our Russian
friends, lost family members . . . Some of my schoolmates lost their
lives as well. They made the ultimate sacrifice from which all of us in
the years since the war have benefited.''
Students from Appleton North High School became interested in the
correspondence and decided to interview local veterans, record their
stories digitally, and make them available online. The letters also
inspired an op-ed article in the local paper on Memorial Day last year
and will be displayed at the Appleton Public Library. We understand the
U.S. Consulate in Yekaterinburg as well as Fox Cities Online are
interested in displaying the letters on their websites. In short, the
Open World delegation's visit to Wisconsin is having a wide ripple
effect.
Two other examples of interchanges that benefited the American host
communities come from Urbana, Illinois, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
In Urbana, a visiting Open World rule of law delegate made a detailed
presentation on the differences between the Russian and American court
systems to the Champaign County circuit court judges, state's attorney,
and public defender; this was followed up by a lively question and
answer session. And in Harrisburg, the two Open World teams of child-
trauma experts working with Beslan victims shared their harrowing
experiences and the latest information on Russian child-trauma theory
and practice during presentations to social-service providers and
community leaders.
As a result of the Open World Program, American professional
leaders are also expanding their own international networks, opening up
multiple channels of dialogue to integrate new ideas and values. Today
one of the best ways to connect with the Supreme Court of Ukraine might
be through Charles R. Simpson III, a federal district court judge in
Louisville, Kentucky. One of Judge Simpson's 2005 Open World delegates,
Ukrainian appellate judge Tatyana Valentinovna Shevchenko, recently e-
mailed him with the news that she had just been appointed to her
country's high court.
The Importance of Russia
The Board believes that Open World should maintain a high level of
hosting from Russia. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated in a
February 12, 2006 interview, we must challenge ``Russia as a whole . .
. the Russian people, to fully integrate [democratic institutional]
values into their future.'' Michael McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace recently asserted the need for ``exchanges,
connections, anything that increases connectivity between Russian and
American society.''
The Open World Program is playing a growing role in helping
Russia's emerging leaders experience first hand the workings of our
democratic institutions to. The ranks of Russian Open World
participants include:
--719 senior regional administrators and 163 regional legislators;
-- more than 1,000 mayors, city council members, municipal
departmental heads, and executive-level city officials;
--887 judges;
--588 NGO directors; and
--188 print editors and 68 heads of TV and radio stations.
In addition, the Open World experience has contributed to the
establishment or strengthening of 65 sister-organization and Rotary
International partner relations, including 17 partnerships between U.S.
and Russian legal communities.
Calendar Year 2005 Activities
Russia
Among the 1,410 Russian participants in calendar year 2005,
delegates came from a wide range of regional ethnic groups, and had
hosting experiences in 47 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
Open World's hosting themes were economic development, the environment,
health and social services, rule of law, women as leaders, and, for the
first time, local governance. Under the health/social services theme,
several Open World teams concentrated on AIDS prevention and treatment,
disability issues, or substance abuse prevention and treatment. Open
World also hosted two delegations of Russian nonproliferation
specialists who worked with their counterparts at two U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories.
A highlight of our 2005 Russia program was a rule of law exchange
hosted by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B. Brooks of Denver,
Colorado, for a high-level delegation of Russian Supreme Commercial
Court justices and regional commercial-court chief judges. The Russians
held talks with federal and state judges and University of Denver law
professors, observed court proceedings, took a workshop on alternative
dispute resolution, and were briefed by the state attorney general on
his office's role and structure. The delegates also attended the U.S.
district court's weekly press briefing and analyzed it with court staff
afterward. Thanks to the relationships established by this and earlier
commercial-court exchanges, the head of Russia's Supreme Commercial
Court will visit the United States later this month on a trip supported
by the Department of State and Open World.
As a result of legislation passed in 2003, the Open World Russia
program now also includes up-and-coming arts administrators and artists
in a range of media--important leaders to the development of a
democratic society. Support from the National Endowment for the Arts
enables the Russian Cultural Leaders Program to offer two- and three-
week residencies to these participants. The 2005 cultural program were
brought Russian writers to the University of Mississippi to participate
in the Oxford Conference on the Book, and brought Russian documentary
filmmakers to the Athens Center for Film and Video in Athens, Ohio, for
an intensive residency.
Ukraine
Ukraine was selected in 2003 for an Open World program because of
its strategic position in Eurasia, its large and educated population,
and its important potential contribution to regional stability.
The 142 young Ukrainian leaders that Open World welcomed in
calendar year 2005 were hosted in 14 states and the District of
Columbia. The theme for Ukraine in 2005 was ``civil society,'' with
subthemes in independent media, electoral processes, NGO development,
and rule of law. Open World initiated a judge-to-judge program similar
to its highly successful judicial exchange with Russia. Forty-two
Ukrainian judges, including a Supreme Court justice and two members of
the Supreme Commercial Court, were hosted in eight different states. In
a number of the American communities that hosted Ukrainian leaders, the
impact of the Orange Revolution was discussed in presentations,
roundtables, and panels.
The September 13, 2005 mayoral primary in Cincinnati provided the
backdrop for one of this year's most successful Ukrainian exchanges: a
study trip on American media and elections for a delegation of print
and broadcast journalists. Hosted locally by the Cincinnati-Ukraine
Partnership, the delegates observed mayoral candidates being
interviewed by the press, spent a half day with key editors of the
Cincinnati Enquirer, had a workshop on public relations and the press,
and observed balloting at the Board of Elections on election night.
They also sat in on newspaper editorial meetings and a live television
news broadcast, allowing them to feel, as one delegation member said,
like ``part of the editorial team.''
Open World 2006 and Plans for 2007
For 2006, the Board of Trustees approved continuing the successful
Open World programs for Russia (civic, cultural, and rule of law) and
the rule of law and civic programs for Ukraine. I appointed a panel to
assess and make recommendations for Board consideration on four major
issues: (1) whether Open World should expand to other countries, and if
so, which, (2) whether country programs should be linked by region, (3)
what the scope and nature of alumni programs should be, and (4) what
improvements could be made to the Russia and Ukraine programs. The
panel will submit an overall strategic plan for board approval by June
2006. The Board will notify the Appropriations Committee of any
countries selected for new Open World programs. Any program expansion
will be initiated in calendar 2006 and fully implemented in 2007. By
September 30, 2006, Open World will finish implementing the financial
management and administrative recommendations in the Government
Accountability Office's March 2004 report on Open World.
The budget request maintains hosting and other programmatic
activities at a level of approximately 1,400 participants total. Actual
allocations of hosting to individual countries will be adjusted to
conform to Board of Trustees recommendations and consultation with the
Appropriations Committees. The requested funding support is also needed
for anticipated fiscal year 2007 pay increases and to cover the
Department of State Capital Security Cost Sharing charge for the
Center's two Foreign National Staff.
Major categories of requested funding are:
--Personnel Compensation and Benefits ($1.197 million)
--Contracts ($8.48 million--awarded to U.S.-based entities) that
include: Coordinating the delegate nomination and vetting
process; obtaining visas and other travel documents; arranging
and paying for air travel; coordinating with grantees and
placing delegates; and providing health insurance for
participants.
--Grants ($4.72 million--awarded to U.S. host organizations) that
include the cost of providing: Professional programming for
delegates; meals outside of those provided by home hosts;
cultural activities; local transportation; professional
interpretation; and administrative support.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2007 budget request will enable the Open World
Leadership Center to continue to make major contributions to an
understanding of democracy, civil society, and free enterprise in a
region of vital importance to the Congress and the nation. This
Subcommittee's interest and support have been essential ingredients in
Open World's success.
I thank the Subcommittee for its continued support of the Open
World Program.
APPENDIX A.--OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Description 2007 estimated
obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.1 Personnel Compensation............................. $944,100
12.1 Personnel Benefits................................. 252,400
21.0 Travel............................................. 97,500
22.0 Transportation..................................... 2,200
23.0 Rent, Comm., Utilities............................. 8,100
24.0 Printing........................................... 4,100
25.1 Other Services/Contracts........................... 8,386,000
26.0 Supplies........................................... 4,100
31.0 Equipment.......................................... 16,500
41.0 Grants............................................. 4,685,000
---------------
Total, fiscal year 2007 budget request............ 14,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Copyright Office's fiscal year 2007 budget
request.
The Copyright Office is requesting the Committee's approval of four
program changes for the Copyright BASIC appropriation. There are three
offsetting collections authority changes and one in net appropriations.
In offsetting collections, we are requesting a $1,590,901 decrease in
the Reengineering Program funding due to fewer funds in the no year
account, an $850,000 decrease due to a decrease in renewal receipts,
and a $600,000 increase due to an overall increase in receipts from
other service fees. In new net appropriation authority, the Office
requests $1 million to digitally image the pre-1978 public records to
mitigate the risk of loss and to make them available online. I will
discuss these requests in more detail, after I provide an overview of
the Office's work and accomplishments.
review of copyright office work and accomplishments
The Copyright Office's mission is to promote creativity by
sustaining an effective national copyright system. We do this by
administering the copyright law; providing policy and legal assistance
to the Congress, the administration, and the judiciary; and by
informing and educating the public about our nation's copyright system.
The demands in these areas are growing and becoming more complex with
the evolution and increased use of digital technology.
I will briefly highlight some of the Office's current and past work
and our plans for fiscal year 2006.
Policy and Legal Work
We have continued to work closely with the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, its Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and its House
counterpart. In May, I testified before the Senate Subcommittee on
International Piracy of Intellectual Property, highlighting the fact
that piracy is one of the most enduring copyright problems throughout
the world and the Office's efforts, together with other Federal
agencies, to reduce piracy to the lowest levels possible.
I also testified twice last year on ways to modernize music
licensing in a digital world. In June, I testified before the House
Subcommittee and in July, I testified before the Senate Subcommittee.
During the first hearing, I focused on the possibility of permitting
``music rights organizations'' to license on a consolidated basis both
the public performance right of a musical work as well as its
reproduction and distribution rights. In the second hearing, I
considered alternative solutions to the music licensing dilemma,
including a blanket statutory license for digital phonorecord
deliveries. These hearings and meetings with representatives of the
affected industries produced a consensus that Section 115 of the
copyright law should be modernized to reflect the needs and realities
of the online world. However, there was no agreement as to how such
modernization should be structured and implemented. Further work is
needed in this area and I will continue to work with the interested
parties and Congress on legislative solutions to the music licensing
problem in this and the next fiscal year.
I testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in
September to examine legal and policy issues in the wake of the Supreme
Court's June 27, 2005, decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v.
Grokster, Ltd. which clarified the doctrine of secondary liability as
it would apply to those who offer products and services in a way that
induces others to engage in copyright infringement. I testified that
the Court's ruling seemed to strike an appropriate balance between the
rights of copyright holders and the flexibility necessary to enable and
encourage technologists to continue to develop new products and, thus,
there was no immediate need for new legislation. I used the word
``seemed'' because, at the time of the hearing, only three months had
passed since the ruling and it was simply too early to tell whether
Grokster would provide sufficient guidance for the years and
circumstances to come.
The Office implemented a new preregistration system, as required by
the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, Public Law 109-9,
within the statutory six-month time frame. Preregistration of an
unpublished work being prepared for commercial distribution allows a
copyright owner to bring an infringement action before the authorized
publication of the work and full registration, making it possible, upon
full registration, to recover statutory damages and attorney fees. The
electronic preregistration filing system became operational on November
15, 2005.
The Office also conducted two studies in 2005. First, Senators
Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy requested that we examine the issue of
``orphan works,'' copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or
impossible to locate, to determine whether there are compelling
concerns that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution; and if
so, what type of solution could effectively address these concerns
without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right
holders. As part of our efforts to produce this study, the Office
collected over 850 written comments from the public and held roundtable
meetings with dozens of interested parties in the summer of 2005 in
both Washington, D.C. and Berkeley, CA. The Report on Orphan Works was
delivered to Congress in January 2006. Second, at the request of
Congress, we have also conducted a study to examine the harm to
copyright owners whose programming is retransmitted by satellite
carriers under a statutory license in Section 119. This report was also
delivered to Congress in January 2006.
In addition, the Office has initiated its triennial rulemaking on
exceptions from section 1201 prohibition on circumvention of
technological measures that control access to copyrighted works and has
received public comments. In addition, we will conduct hearings in
Washington, D.C. and Palo Alto, CA. to elicit further information from
the public. The study will be concluded in fiscal year 2007, at which
time, I will make my recommendations to the Librarian of Congress on
classes of works that should be exempted from the section 1201
prohibition on circumvention.
We have also been actively involved in the implementation of the
Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (CRDRA), Public
Law 108-419, which became effective on May 31, 2005. This Act phases
out the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARPs), a program
administered by the Copyright Office, and replaces them with a new
Library program which is independent of the Copyright Office and
employs three full-time Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJs) and three
staff. This organization is known as the Copyright Royalty Board. At
the outset of the program, I worked diligently with my colleagues to
identify and recruit the three highly qualified individuals who the
Librarian appointed to the Board in January 2006.
The primary responsibilities of the CRJs, as with the CARPs which
preceded them, are to set rates and terms for the various statutory
licenses contained in the Copyright Act and to determine the
distribution of royalty fees collected by the Copyright Office pursuant
to certain of these licenses. The CRJs have the additional
responsibility to promulgate notice and recordkeeping regulations to
administer some of the statutory licenses. In accordance with the rate
setting schedule set forth in the law, the Board has initiated three
rate setting proceedings and it will conduct hearings in fiscal year
2007 to set rates for the transmission of sound recordings over the
internet.
We have worked closely with the Board to insure a smooth transition
from the old system to the new and we have taken steps to conclude open
and pending distribution and rate setting proceedings that were
commenced under the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) program.
The conclusion of these proceedings, however, does not end my
involvement in the determination of statutory rates and distributions
of royalty fees. Under the Reform Act, the Board must seek a legal
opinion from me on any novel question of copyright law and may seek a
written determination on other material questions of substantive law.
Such determinations shall be binding as precedent upon the Copyright
Royalty Judges in subsequent proceedings.
During fiscal year 2007, we will continue to take an active role in
a number of important copyright cases, many of which challenge the
constitutionality of various provisions of the Copyright Act, and
continue to provide ongoing advice to executive branch agencies on
international matters, particularly, the United States Trade
Representative, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of
State; and participate in numerous multinational, regional and
bilateral negotiations.
Registration and Recordation
Registration of claims to copyright, including renewals, and
recordation of documents, such as assignments, security interests, and
mergers, are critical parts of the U.S. copyright system. Timely
registration secures to owners certain benefits and provides a public
record of copyright ownership. The Office has significantly improved
its delivery times for these services since 2001.
During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Office received 600,535
claims to copyright covering more than a million works and registered
531,720 claims. The Office maintained an average of 80-90 days to issue
a registration certificate, a significant improvement over processing
times at the beginning of the decade. We also reduced the average
processing time for the creation and posting of online copyright
records by 50 percent.
The Copyright Office records documents relating to copyrighted
works, mask works, and vessel hull designs and creates records of those
documents. These documents frequently concern popular and economically
significant works. The Office recorded 11,874 documents covering more
than 350,000 titles of works in fiscal year 2005. The average time to
record a document was 50-60 days.
These achievements took place during a period marked by a
significant investment of staff resources to reengineer Copyright
Office processes and to move online copyright records from legacy
systems to a database in Endeavor System's Voyager.
We expect a significant decrease in renewal registrations in 2007,
due to the expiration of the renewal provision in the law. Renewal
registrations only apply to works that were copyrighted before January
1, 1978, the effective date of the current copyright law. Before 1978,
if a work was published with the required notice of copyright or an
unpublished work was registered in the Copyright Office, it received an
initial term of copyright protection of 28 years, and a renewal term
that initially was 28 years and today is 67 years. To receive the
renewal term, a renewal registration had to be made in the last year of
the initial term, i.e., the 28th year. The last date for 28th year
renewals was December 31, 2005.
The law was changed in 1992 to make renewal registration voluntary.
This law applies to works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and
December 31, 1977. There were certain benefits gained by renewing in
the 28th year, but if no renewal claim was registered in the 28th year
of the term, renewal was automatically secured on the last day of that
year. However, even if renewal is automatically secured, i.e., no
renewal application was submitted in the 28th year of the initial term
of copyright, a renewal claim may be submitted after the 28th year and
some benefits flow from such a registration. A number of such
registrations are made each year and we expect to receive 2,000 to
3,000 renewals in this category compared to the 16,000 to 18,000
renewals we have been receiving per year.
The President signed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act
(FECA), Public Law 109-9, on April 27, 2005. As mentioned earlier, this
legislation amended the copyright law by the addition of a new
provision, Sec. 408(f), establishing preregistration. Preregistration,
as distinct from registration, is available only for unpublished
copyrighted works in categories that the Register of Copyrights finds
to have had a history of infringement prior to commercial distribution.
Unlike registration, preregistration requires only an application which
includes a description of the work and a fee. Preregistration is an
online service only; it is part of the new information technology
system called eCO (Electronic Copyright Office). From April 2005
through the end of the fiscal year, the Office completed intensive work
to prepare the electronic preregistration application form and help
text, and to do the related IT development, process analysis, and
training required to implement on November 15, 2005. Much of the
development work that was done for the preregistration system will be
applied directly to the electronic registration system that will be
piloted in April 2006.
Public Information and Education
The Copyright Office responded to 362,263 requests for direct
reference services and electronically published thirty-nine issues of
its electronic newsletter NewsNet--a source that alerts over 5,000
subscribers to Congressional hearings, new and proposed regulations,
deadlines for comments, new publications, other copyright-related
subjects, and news about the Copyright Office.
The Office website continued to play a key role in disseminating
information to the copyright community and the general public. The
Office logged close to 30 million external hits to key web pages in
fiscal year 2005, representing a 49 percent increase over the previous
year. The website received several enhancements, including introduction
of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds by which members of the public
can receive instant notification of updates and revisions on pages that
change frequently. There is a new history page that includes
biographies of former Registers of Copyright, annual reports dating
back to 1870, and previous copyright acts. The website is also part of
LCNet, a new gateway for members of Congress and their staff.
Licensing Activities
The Copyright Office administers certain provisions of the
copyright law's statutory licenses. The Licensing Division collects
royalty fees from cable operators for retransmitting television and
radio broadcasts, from satellite carriers for retransmitting
``superstation'' and network signals, and from importers and
manufacturers of digital audio recording products for later
distribution to copyright owners. In calendar year 2005, the Office
collected $212.6 million in royalty funds and distributed $150.7
million to copyright owners.
Reengineering Program
The Copyright Office's seven-year Reengineering Program initiative
is to redesign delivery of its public services. This program is
customer driven to prepare our Office for the future growth in
electronic submissions. The Office had planned for the reengineering
implementation to be completed in the first half of fiscal year 2007,
to include moving staff offsite so that its space in the Madison
Building could be renovated in one phase. However, due to
infrastructure and offsite lease requirements, the program cannot be
completed until the third quarter of fiscal year 2007. The program has
four major components--process, information technology, facilities, and
organization that will be fully implemented in fiscal year 2007.
Process
Accomplishments in the process component closely tracked IT
development. Pilot projects began in fiscal year 2005 to test both the
new processes and the new IT system, eCO. In the Registration Pilot,
several thousand actual copyright registrations for motion pictures
were made using most of the new processes--incoming paper forms were
scanned, hard copy deposits were bar-coded and tracked, and all
internal processing and correspondence was done in the eCO system.
Other pilots included the Deposit Selection Pilot, during which
examiners successfully made selection decisions for certain routine
monographs and musical works for the Library of Congress. In an
Electronic Deposit Pilot, selected publishers submitted electronic
versions of works via the internet, in preparation for electronic
registration and possible future deposit of electronic formats for the
Library's collections. As I mentioned earlier, the new preregistration
service was implemented in eCO with an online-only application and
completely paperless process. This service successfully uses Treasury's
Pay.Gov for fee payments.
Information Technology (IT)
During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Technology Office (CTO)
continued to work closely with the system development contractor SRA
International, on the analysis, design, and building of the new
Copyright IT systems infrastructure that will support the reengineered
business processes. The CTO also made further significant progress on
the conversion of the historical files of copyright registrations and
recordations to MARC format and the preparation for access to the
records through the Voyager system.
To ensure compliance with the Library's new system security
regulation and newly issued security directives, the Office established
a Security Review Board (SRB), made up of Copyright staff and
consultants. During the 10 weeks preceding the implementation of the
Registration Pilot, the SRB created a System Security Plan defining the
security requirements, conducted a risk assessment, carried out a
security compliance test and evaluation, and made recommendations to
Copyright Office management about the security status of the software
for this pilot. As a result, the Office received an interim
authorization to operate and the system moved to production.
In fiscal year 2006, the Office plans to expand its implementation
of an on-line web portal--eCO Service--to allow the public to apply for
copyright services online and pay with a credit card or bank account
through Pay.Gov. Claims processing through the web portal will
initially be a pilot to allow for full testing of the system before
making it available to all the public in 2007. Additionally, we will
use eCO to search a Voyager database of copyright records dating back
to January 1, 1978.
In fiscal year 2007 the Office plans to complete the IT component
by transforming eCO Service from a pilot to full operational capability
for processing copyright claims and issuing registration certificates,
processing statements of account for statutory licenses, processing
acquisition demands under section 407, and recording transfers,
assignments, and other documents.
Facilities
In November 2004, the Library appointed a project manager funded by
the Copyright Office to oversee the Madison Building renovation project
and coordinate attendant swing space moves within Capitol Hill and
offsite. The Copyright Office hired a move management company to
oversee the moves offsite and back to the Madison Building. In late
September 2005, after an extensive search for temporary offsite lease
space, the Library signed occupancy agreements with Government Services
Administration (GSA) for space within two buildings in Crystal City,
VA. In December 2005, an RFP was issued for construction of the offsite
rental space. A contract was awarded in February 2006 and construction
began in late February. Most of the Office's staff will move offsite in
early July 2006. The remaining operations and staff will be located in
the Adams and Madison buildings. We expect all staff to return to the
Madison renovated space in July 2007.
Organization
The Office completed new and revised position descriptions to
support the new processes for most of the divisions in the new
organizational structure. Preliminary work was done to prepare for the
``cross-walk'' of staff from current to new positions and from the
current divisions and sub-units to the new ones. The Office began
drafting documents required for the reorganization package as specified
in Library of Congress regulations. In fiscal year 2007, the new
organization and positions will be implemented, coinciding with the
return of the staff to the Madison Building and the implementation of
new processes.
fiscal year 2007 budget request
Reengineering
No new funding is needed for reengineering for fiscal year 2007.
Rather, the Office is reducing its offsetting collections base by
$1,590,911 as a result of fewer funds remaining in the no-year account.
Renewal Receipts
With respect to renewal registrations, the Office is reducing its
offsetting collections authority by $850,000 and five staff due to the
fact that the number of renewal registrations will decrease
significantly in fiscal year 2007.
When renewal registration was required, the Office registered
approximately 52,000 claims. Since the enactment of the automatic
renewal provision in 1992, the number of renewal claims have decreased
each year. In fiscal year 2005, the Office received approximately
15,893 renewal claims bringing in fees of approximately $1.2 million.
In fiscal year 2006, we believe that amount will drop to about $500,000
and in fiscal year 2007 to about $150,000. Our records show that
approximately 5,500 renewal claims were received in October, November,
and December 2004. This has decreased to 4,839 for the same period in
2005 and is expected to decline throughout the rest of fiscal year
2006.
Overall Fees Increased
Over the past two years, the overall fees collected for the Basic
Fund have gradually increased and are projected in fiscal year 2007 to
exceed the normal receipts level of approximately $23 million by
$600,000. This is based on more dollars being received across all the
fee products, not from a change in the fee schedule. Based on this
trend, the Office requests a permanent $600,000 increase in offsetting
collections authority.
Copyright Records Preservation
The Office requests funding to digitize the pre-1978 copyright
records. The key objectives of this record digitization project are (1)
disaster preparedness preservation of pre-1978 public records and (2)
provision of online access to those public records. Copyright records
are vital to the mission of the Library of Congress and the Copyright
Office and they are important to the public and the copyright
industries that are a significant part of the global economy. The pre-
1978 records document the ownership and copyright status of millions of
creative works. Loss of these sole-copy public records due to a site
disaster would trigger a complex and expensive intellectual property
ownership dilemma. Additionally, the unavailability of pre-1978 records
online has been raised as a major issue in the study on the problem of
``orphan works.''
During fiscal year 2005, the Copyright Office, with the Library's
Office of Strategic Initiatives, completed the Copyright Records
Project study of the feasibility of digitizing millions of these paper
records and developing technical approaches for integrating the
resulting digital records with post-1977 digital records. The project
team completed testing of vendor capabilities to digitize and index
sample records. A comprehensive report of the project provided
implementation strategies, cost estimates, and a recommendation for how
the conversion could be handled in two stages.
The first stage would cost approximately $6,000,000 over a six year
period and would achieve the preservation goal and very basic online
access. The second stage would add item level indexing, enhanced
searching and retrieval, costing between $5,000,000 and $65,000,000
depending on the extent of fields indexed. The Copyright Office is
requesting for fiscal year 2007 the initial $1 million to begin the
first stage.
future fee increase
On November 13, 1997, Congress enacted the Technical Amendments
Act, some provisions of which are now codified in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 708.
The law requires the Register of Copyrights, whenever appropriate, to
conduct a study of costs incurred by the Office for the registration of
claims, the recordation of documents and other special services. On the
basis of the study and public policy considerations and subject to
congressional review, the Register is authorized to increase statutory
and related fees to recover reasonable costs adjusted for inflation.
Furthermore, the new fees should be fair and equitable and give due
consideration to the objectives of the copyright system.
The last time the Copyright Office raised fees was July 2002. The
basic filing fee was set in 1999 and has not increased since that time.
Historically, a change in the charge for services usually causes a drop
in customer demand in the fiscal year following the increase and then a
gradual rise in demand over the next two years. The possibility for
raising fees was considered in 2001-2002. Because the Office had just
begun its reengineering project to implement electronic registrations,
and that project was to have been completed in 2006, the fee increase
was postponed to coincide with the implementation of the new electronic
system. However, since the implementation date for the new system is
now summer 2007, we believe that we should move forward with a change
to fees now.
I have received fee recommendations based on a cost study developed
by a task group. We will complete the required economic analysis and
propose a schedule of fees to Congress in March 2006 to be effective
July 1, 2006. The Office will publish a notice in the Federal Register
to announce a proposed fee schedule. Based on a year's experience under
the revised fee schedule and the new business processes, the Office
expects to adjust the mix of net appropriation and offsetting
collections authority in its fiscal year 2008 BASIC budget submission
to Congress.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I ask you to support the fiscal year 2007 Copyright
Basic budget request for a permanent net decrease in offsetting
collections for the BASIC appropriation and a one time $1 million
increase in net appropriations for the Digital Imaging project.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget will allow us to implement the final
steps of our Reengineering Program. Once implemented, the Office plans
to further reduce both its net appropriations and offsetting
collections authority in the fiscal year 2008 budget request as well as
adjust the net appropriations and offsetting collections based on the
implementation of new fees. We appreciate your continued support for
the Reengineering Project that will transform the way we do business
and meet the public's demand for electronic services.
I thank the Committee for its past support of the Copyright Office
requests and for your consideration of this request in this challenging
time of transition and progress.
LOGISTICS CENTER COST
Senator Allard. Thank you very much. I have a few
questions. It should not take us too long this morning to get
you on your way.
On the logistics warehouse, I am glad to see that you
recognize that this is a pretty big chunk that we are looking
at. The total overhead is about 18 percent. You have 10 percent
that is being assessed by the Architect and you have 8 percent
by the Corps of Engineers. It sounds excessive. I wonder if,
with two supervising agencies, we have a duplication of effort.
I wonder if you could comment on that.
Dr. Billington. Well, I think I would defer to General
Scott on this issue, except to say that the basic construction
cost, the $41 million, is about what was approved for the last
two book modules approved last year, and there is this question
of construction oversight fees, as you indicate.
I would just say briefly that the importance of this can
hardly be overestimated. It is essential to effect this kind of
consolidation for the Library's entire distribution function.
It is not just a warehouse; it is a logistics center that will
more efficiently do what is being done less efficiently at four
separate locations at higher costs, to be precise.
LOGISTICS CENTER REVIEW
We plan to discuss on a line by line basis in a very
careful way all estimated costs with the Architect of the
Capitol. But I will defer to General Scott, who has been more
deeply involved in the planning.
General Scott. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Library is very concerned about the oversight costs and
contingency reserves. These are costs as you correctly point
out, by the AOC and the Corps of Engineers, which we have no
control or influence over. However, we have and will continue
to engage them to ask them to help us look for ways that we can
reduce those costs and still receive the kind of expert
construction oversight that is required to put up that
facility.
We also, as Dr. Billington mentioned, will go through a
line by line study to ensure that any type of savings that we
can propose will be realized and we can reduce the price.
One of the other additional costs related to that facility
came about as a result of concern from some of the citizens of
that area who wanted there to be more of a look to blend with
the neighborhood of the Fort Meade facilities. That has added
more money than would otherwise be needed.
So we will revisit all these estimated costs, but in the
end we are very much concerned about them. We are engaged with
the AOC and we will appreciate anything the subcommittee can do
to help us work with the AOC to reduce these costs.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT (GPRA)
Senator Allard. I am going to have my staff talk with the
Corps of Engineers as well as the Architect of the Capitol on
these administrative costs and express to them my concerns
about how high they are.
Now, we do not have the Architect of the Capitol under what
is referred to as the performance assessment and review tool
(PART) program. This is the method that the Office of
Management and Budget uses to measure performance within the
agencies of the Federal Government. The legislative agencies
are not required to be under this. Executive branch agencies
are required to justify actions and assess results that we can
measure here in Congress.
And if they do not measure very well, it impacts how
favorably their budget is considered. If they are rated as, for
example, ineffective or results not demonstrated, their budget
would be cut.
FEDERAL AGENCY OVERHEAD
So, you are the customer of the Army Corps of Engineers,
and we will have our staff talk to them. When we have these
overhead costs, we need to be sure they can justify them, that
they are measurable from a customer satisfaction standpoint.
Frankly, I want to see more of our legislative agencies under
that program because as legislators and policymakers it gives
us the ability to measure performance of the various agencies.
And while we are on the subject, we would encourage the
Library of Congress to also look at this kind of accountability
when you report to the subcommittee, because it is valuable for
policymakers and it does help us do a better job for the
taxpayers of this country.
This particular article, just for your information, we got
this out of Congressional Quarterly, page 538 and 539, so you
can look at the program if you are not familiar with it. This
is an opportunity for us to have more accountability and
oversight of these agencies. I think they are way too high,
these administrative costs.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT AND LIBRARY PLANNING
General Scott. We certainly appreciate your assistance in
this, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we too appreciate the value of GPRA
standards because we have been implementing GPRA since 1997. To
a certain degree, the cost savings that we have been able to
show with this 2007 budget came as a result of follow-on to
GPRA and coming up with an annual activity and performance
plan. From that plan we create the operating plan that we give
to the Congress. So we appreciate GPRA, and we certainly
appreciate what you might do to help us.
Senator Allard. The nice thing about it is you are not
necessarily just counting beans. What you do hope to put in
place are some goals and objectives that are measurable from a
consumer standpoint: Who is using that agency? Who is using
their services? And how are those customers' needs being met?
So I think it helps us all do a better job in that. We have to
measure results.
COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS FACILITY
Also, one other question now. You have requested money for
this logistics warehouse. In the 2005 budget, we had a
copyright deposits facility project. Would you explain to me
why we now have the logistics warehouse that seems to have a
higher priority than the copyright facility when the copyright
facility was requested back in the 2005 budget?
Dr. Billington. Well, the copyright deposits facility is
extremely important. It is very difficult to make choices of
this kind, but the logistics center need is a more immediate
one. We are moving ahead thanks to the Congress' approval in
2003 and 2004. This is a year of important transition for the
Copyright Office. Fiscal year 2007 is the last year of the
reengineering project. The staff must relocate for 1 year while
their facilities are reconfigured. The logistics issues affect
distribution and storage, and the related safety and security
problems seem to us essential this year. The copyright
facility, which I think the Library will have to come back for
next year, is equally important, but perhaps a little bit more
deferrable because of the redesign that is taking place to
facilitate a modular construction approach. It will be an
essential request next year. It is not a lesser priority; it is
just a different priority and one that fits next year with the
overall schedule because of the redesigned modular approach.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you.
Dr. Billington. General Scott wanted to add to that.
General Scott. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we were asked to
take another look at the redesign of that copyright deposits
facility, which we did. Then we only switched priorities
temporarily while coming up with the redesign, making a
determination that it would be more advantageous for the
Library to go ahead with the logistics center at this time
rather than with the copyright facility this year.
INTRODUCTION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Senator Allard. I am one legislator who utilizes the
agencies that are sort of the eyes and ears of the Congress.
GAO is one. Another one is the Inspector General. I know that
the Inspector General has expressed some concerns about the
cost on this and I understand that Mr. Schornagel is here with
us today. I would like to have him come up if you would,
please, and make any comments that you care to make about this
proposal.
Mr. Schornagel. My name is Karl Schornagel, Inspector
General.
LOGISTICS CENTER REVIEW
As you have already stated, I have concerns about the cost
of this warehouse. I just learned of the total price a couple
weeks ago and I expressed concerns immediately. I also raised
in March 2005 some concern about the size of this warehouse. I
am in the process of getting information from the Library as we
speak, and there is an important report that is going to be
issued by one of the Library's contractors that should shed
some light on this issue.
Senator Allard. When is that supposed to come out?
Mr. Schornagel. Next week.
Senator Allard. Next week, okay.
Mr. Schornagel. I also share the Librarian's concern that
the whole cadre of storage facilities at Fort Meade is behind
schedule about 5 or 6 years. There certainly is a need to get
some of these buildings put up.
Senator Allard. So would you be more specific about some of
your concerns about cost overruns?
Mr. Schornagel. Yes. I am concerned that about $15 million
of that $54 million in cost is oversight and contingency. I am
especially concerned about multiple layers of oversight. About
$7 million of that is for AOC oversight and administration,
more than $3 million for the Corps of Engineers. There is $6
million in reserves and contingency, plus another 25 percent in
price escalation.
I also have issues about some of the individual cost
components of the warehouse itself that range anywhere from
microwave ovens to the sod for the front lawn. I believe that
the whole cost issue and approach needs to be reviewed more
thoroughly.
Senator Allard. I hope that while you review this project,
his suggestions will be helpful in trying to figure out ways in
which we could bring down the cost of this.
In the past you have raised concerns about poor space
management at Library facilities, including the warehouse at
Landover----
Mr. Schornagel. Yes, that is true.
Senator Allard [continuing]. That the new facility would
replace. Have these concerns been resolved?
Mr. Schornagel. Well, not fully. That is what I mentioned
earlier. In March 2005 I issued an audit report that found
inefficient use of the space. As a result, about 20 percent of
the inventory items were deleted. These are items that were
either excess or obsolete. As part of that audit report, I
recommended that the size of the new warehouse be reconsidered
in light of this new efficiency gain and, to my satisfaction
that has not fully been addressed yet.
Senator Allard. So we have excess capacity that is being
poorly managed in the Landover facility?
Mr. Schornagel. Yes, that is true.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Schornagel. And I have other issues. For example, the
reference to the new warehouse is in terms of square feet, but
when you consider that the proposed warehouse is going to be
taller, it actually increases the capacity per square foot
because you have to look at cubic feet. Issues like that are
relevant to the plans for this new warehouse.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REALIGNMENT
Senator Allard. Thank you for that insight.
On the CRS realignment, the CRS determined last year that
some 59 production support, technology support, and audio-
visual positions were no longer needed and the affected
employees were offered a buyout in January. Those who did not
take the buyout could be subject to a reduction in force later
this year.
Can you describe the process that CRS went through to make
that determination that the positions were not needed, Dr.
Billington?
Dr. Billington. Well, I will defer to the Director of the
Congressional Research Service to respond in detail. I will
point out that this is part of the workforce transformation
process. The needs of the Service to deliver, and particularly
to integrate the electronic aspects of the Service have been
increasing greatly. We need to reconfigure the workforce to
deal simultaneously with both the digital component of
information delivery, including the successful mining of the
vast amount of public policy research, as we continue our
traditional artifactual work.
So the Library is undergoing very important
transformational changes currently. I will let the Director of
the Service speak more directly to the particulars.
TECHNOLOGY AND STAFFING
Senator Allard. Dan Mulhollan, would you like to come up?
While he is coming up, Dr. Billington, I have to tell you I
am very sympathetic with your challenges in moving to a high
tech operation. Those are huge challenges and they create some
obstacles as far as managing your workforce. These are
challenges we both have to face.
Dr. Billington. Servicing the Congress is our first
priority. We are the Library of Congress, and making sure that
that conversion moves ahead so the Service can be as effective,
timely, dependable and objective as it has always been is a
very high priority.
Senator Allard. Well, the high technology requires a higher
level of expertise and it is more efficient in many ways. The
user of the Library can more quickly search out the information
through computer search.
Dr. Billington. It used to be in the early days of the
information revolution that the IT part of an institution was
where the expertise would be concentrated. It now has to be
developed thoroughly and integrated into the direct service
components much more seamlessly and much more immediately. I
will let the Director speak to the details.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE DIRECTOR
Senator Allard. Mr. Mulhollan.
Mr. Mulhollan. Good morning Senator. We welcome the
opportunity to discuss this issue. I appreciate it.
As a matter of good business practices, CRS reviews its
activities and positions continually and has for years. What we
identified is, particularly in the functions of production
support and audio-visual functions, that the positions we had
established in the early 1990s, which corresponded to the
technical functions at that time, were no longer relevant to
the technical skills needed with a more sophisticated,
centralized IT operating system. For instance, production
support activities are now seamlessly integrated into network
software. Numerous technical support positions had been created
to install new hardware as well as software packages and
upgrades machine by machine. Now, with ``push'' technology and
a fully integrated network system, those functions no longer
are needed.
We also found an underuse of the Service's audio-visual
functions, as well as the changes in technology.
Our responsibility is to maintain analytical and research
capacity and these decisions were based on our ensuring we
could do that. Given the fact that we had a certain amount of
money available, workforce reengineering seemed necessary.
We had announced to staff on September 22, 2005 that we
were going to eliminate 59 support positions effective
September 30, 2006. To my knowledge, there is not another
agency that has given their staff 1 year in order to find other
jobs. In addition, with your help from last year, we offered
separation incentives as well as getting early out authority
from the Office of Personnel Management in order to provide
more options to staff.
Twenty-three of the 59 took full or early retirement with
the separation incentive. We have distributed to all staff in
CRS the entire staffing plan for the remainder of the fiscal
year. As of this point, three of the administrative positions
were filled with affected staff, two staff accepted positions
elsewhere in the Library. Five of the affected staff in those
abolished positions have been placed. I anticipate there is
some likelihood that some of the remaining affected staff are
certainly competitive and may be selected for other jobs.
Currently there are 31 affected staff remaining who will be
without a job at the end of September.
According to our collective bargaining agreement and
Library regs, if in fact those folks are not in another
position by June, the Library of Congress will institute a
reduction in force. My fondest hope is that prior to that time,
every one of those people could find a job that they find
meaningful and good.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Now, that said, one of the things that the Library is
seeking your help for is approval of an administrative
provision that would provide a safety net basically for
reduction in force staff of the Library of Congress. The new
provisions would allow a staff member of the Library who is
facing a reduction in force to be in the executive branch's
priority placement pool, if they want to continue their civil
service. We would much appreciate your serious consideration of
that provision.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 2007
budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). With
regard to our fiscal year 2006 request, I would like to express my
gratitude for the Committee's support. Despite the challenging fiscal
environment, Congress found a way to provide some additional assistance
in meeting the Service's mandatory pay and price-level adjustments,
research materials, and staffing gap.
fiscal year 2007 budget request
The CRS fiscal year 2007 budget request is $104,279,000, consisting
of the fiscal year 2006 base plus an adjustment for mandatory pay
increases for CRS staff, as well as the needed price level adjustment
for the goods and services we acquire in the course of doing our work.
research agenda
This past year Congress has functioned under enormous pressures. In
addition to existing domestic and international issues, lawmakers faced
many unanticipated policy concerns that drew on already strained
resources, such as hurricane-related disasters, Supreme Court
nominations, and control of mandatory spending through the budget-
reconciliation process. Pressing issues such as these have required
your full attention, and the Service has been at your side during these
demanding times, providing expert research and analysis, grounded in
institutional memory, tailored to specific needs, and made immediately
available.
The character of the support we offered to the Congress this past
year reflects the continuing and unbroken history of CRS' singular
mission. We remain steadfast in supplying every committee and Member
with analysis and evaluation of legislative proposals by identifying
all components of the policy issues, estimating the probable results,
and evaluating alternative options.
CRS has a research management framework that is structured to align
with the policymaking needs of the Congress. Service-wide research
planning makes possible a systematic and coordinated approach that
affords important opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration
among experts across the Service. At the beginning of each
congressional session, the Service's leadership and experts work
alongside committees and Members, anticipating and identifying the
major domestic and international policy issues to produce a research
agenda. We continually reassess that agenda to address unanticipated
circumstances. CRS' ability to respond to unexpected need for its
services, while maintaining support for continuing domestic and
international issues, highlights the depth and breadth of its services.
Before Hurricane Katrina even made landfall, we had compiled a list
of CRS experts and identified the Service's relevant products, making
them immediately available on our website. We contacted Members in the
affected states and alerted them to available CRS support and services.
We then assembled teams from relevant disciplines and policy areas to
address Congress' concerns about hurricane victims' access to
assistance; command and control in emergency management; federal
financing of unprecedented, extended assistance in the form of food,
shelter, health services, and general income support; challenges to
rebuilding; and reestablishment of the social and economic stability of
the region. CRS experts assessed pre- and post-hurricane conditions
relevant to policy concerns, critiqued the focus and effectiveness of
existing laws and programs, and evaluated policy proposals to bring
relief to the area. Through briefings and consultations, in more than
one hundred research products, and via specially designed sections of
the CRS website, the Service provided the Congress with support during
this major national disaster, which Congress addressed in more than one
hundred hearings.
Other unanticipated legislative issues required slightly different
approaches. For example, the Senate was called on for the first time in
eleven years to carry out its advice and consent responsibilities in
the Supreme Court confirmation process. However, more than one-half of
the Senators and many congressional staff holding key positions in the
process had no direct experience with such appointments. To support
them, CRS provided legal expertise, research and analysis, and the
insight resulting from institutional memory, acquired though several
decades of support for Supreme Court and other judicial nominations.
Through in-person briefings, reports, seminars and confidential
memoranda, CRS informed Congress about committee and floor rules and
procedures, the constitutionality of filibusters in relation to
judicial nominations, status and prospects for the evolution of areas
of law, and a history of congressional experiences with previous
Supreme Court nominations. Additionally, aided by the digital scanning
operations and the unique collections of the Library of Congress, CRS
provided searchable online access to congressional documentation,
including hearings, floor debates, floor statements, and votes, for
eighteen successful and unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations. Most of
this documentation, nearly 100,000 pages, had not previously been
available digitally.
In April 2005, Congress adopted a budget resolution for fiscal year
2006 that included instructions to sixteen House and Senate authorizing
committees. The instructions called for reductions in mandatory outlays
over several years and for tax reductions and increased limit on public
debt. To assist these committees and the Congress as a whole, CRS
prepared explanations of budget process, procedures, and practices,
some of which Congress had not exercised for eight years. Thirty-eight
percent of the House Members and one-third of the Senate were not in
their current roles in 1997, which was the last time Congress employed
reconciliation to control spending. CRS briefed many Members and
committees on these procedures. CRS also assisted in assessing the
overall financial and policy implications of budget reconciliation
measures, ranging from the specific options and their implications for
trimming mandatory spending to the possible impacts on various programs
subject to proposed changes.
management initiatives
CRS adapts in other areas to uphold our commitment to Congress.
Consistent with my responsibility to lead an accountable and cost-
effective organization and in response to congressional directives, CRS
not only re-assesses its direct services to the Congress, it also
continually examines the internal operations supporting that service.
As Congress has indicated, new technologies can lead to greater
efficiency, and CRS has completed a long-term study of the impact of
information technology on our work processes. The resulting analysis
indicated that CRS, through workforce re-engineering of some support
functions, could reduce the number of support staff needed Service-wide
and devote more of the resources to the our analytic capacity without
any loss in productivity.
In 2005 CRS completed an examination of our production support,
technical support, and audio-visual functions, those support functions
most dramatically impacted by technological advancements. After
extensive consultation we reached the decision to eliminate the
outdated functions. The decision affected 59 staff, which is about 8.4
percent of the total CRS workforce. To assist these individuals, many
of whom are long-term CRS employees, the Service announced the decision
one year in advance, offered a voluntary early retirement option and a
congressionally approved separation incentive, and provided continuing
retirement and career counseling to the affected staff. This type of
workforce self-examination is not new to CRS. As a result of similar
assessments, CRS has eliminated or curtailed other functional
activities over the years. Earlier situations also required CRS to
eliminate positions, but in the past CRS was able to achieve the down-
sizing through attrition. Given the fiscal year 2006 constraints, which
require CRS to reduce its staff size by almost 30 full-time
equivalents, it is not practical for CRS to retain indefinitely these
employees, whose functions are not critical to the accomplishment of
the Service's mission. It is our hope that the affected staff will
either retire or find alternative employment before the functions are
eliminated on September 30, 2006. If that does not occur, we will
institute a reduction-in-force (RIF) in accordance with governing
Library regulations and our collective bargaining agreement.
The Library of Congress is requesting the Committee consider an
administrative provision that would grant Library of Congress
employees, including those in CRS, who receive a RIF notice eligibility
into a pool for displaced employees from all federal agencies for
consideration for positions in executive branch agencies. This
provision would place Library of Congress employees behind any affected
employees in an agency undergoing a RIF in selection priority but ahead
of applicants who have no federal service. Adopting this provision
would give the Library's small pool of dedicated legislative branch
public servants a broader potential employment base and could give
employees the opportunity to enhance their civil-service careers beyond
the Library of Congress.
Building on our current performance management system, and in
response to Congress' request that legislative branch agencies consider
the performance model set forth in the Government Performance and
Results Act, CRS developed an enhanced system for assessing performance
and reporting results to the Congress. The plan and reporting system,
which are built around our singularly focused mission, use the key
attributes of relevance, quality, accessibility, and management
initiatives as concrete frames of reference for establishing
performance goals. The plan groups performance goals into two distinct
sets: one focused on research and the other on management. The
management goals are essential to sustaining and improving agency
efficiency in resource usage.
Congress has stated that it expects the legislative branch agencies
to find opportunities to realize savings through outsourcing certain
activities and functions. The Service has permanently outsourced
several business functions that are now being performed successfully by
contractors. These business functions include a centralized copy
center, the CRS technology Help Desk, technology user-support services,
mail and courier services, and receptionist and library technician
positions. We have just awarded a new contract for the mail and courier
services, which includes a revamped performance structure that resulted
in the reduction of one contractor staff position and two mail clerk
positions. We are currently expanding our technology Help Desk contract
operation to provide extended hours of coverage to CRS staff, higher
quality services, and a more sophisticated range of services. The
Service is also expanding its contract support for graphics and product
preparation. We are continually reviewing all of these operations to
ensure the Service's business needs are being met in a manner that
provides the best value and efficacy possible.
In the same spirit of achieving savings to focus our resources on
supplying Congress with needed research and analysis, we are curtailing
non-mission-critical activities, except as explicitly directed by the
Congress. The Service has been working with its oversight committees to
explore alternative approaches to translation services and to the
indexing of congressional publications produced by CRS. In response to
requests for translations, the Service is seeking to provide referral
to outside service providers that have been certified by CRS as
providing reliable and timely responses. Like translation services, the
indexing function is largely outside the mission of the Service, and we
are consulting with our oversight committees and the Joint Committee on
Printing to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement with the
Government Printing Office to assist the Congress with such services.
However, CRS remains responsive to all congressional needs, even
non-mission critical ones, when Congress specifically directs us. For
example, Congress requested CRS provide assistance to the House
Democracy Assistance Commission and the House International Relations
Committee on parliamentary development programs in new democracies. CRS
country experts are assisting the Commission in its selection of
candidate countries. Our country and parliamentary assistance experts
have been detailed to the House International Relations Committee to
travel with Commission staff for needs assessment visits to candidate
countries. The Service has also been asked to provide assistance to the
Georgian, Indonesian, and other parliaments in developing their
research services. Further requests for CRS assistance are likely to
depend on the findings from future needs assessment visits. All travel
is funded through the House Committee, but we continue to pay staff
salaries. CRS leadership is carefully assessing this support to ensure
that the capabilities of our staff remain available to meet other
congressional demands.
conclusion
CRS is responding directly to congressional instruction to submit
reasonable budget requests and consider the overall fiscal constraints
placed on the entire federal budget, to streamline by outsourcing, to
leverage existing technology to enhance operational efficiency, and to
look within for ways to complete our mission. The Service is responding
to a federal fiscal environment that dictates the size of this
organization be about 705 full-time equivalents. Cognizant of current
fiscal realities and heeding congressional direction, the CRS budget
request for fiscal year 2007 does not seek additional funds to support
program growth. The Service seeks your support for the mandatory pay
increases for CRS staff and price-level adjustments for goods and
services.
CRS intends to complete the re-engineering of its administrative
and support staff and will assess the actual impact of these actions,
from both fiscal and functional perspectives, against the expected
results. The Service will likely study other business functions to see
if additional streamlining can be achieved and intends to continue its
practice of reviewing all major contracts and business operations bi-
annually to ensure that the Service's fiscal resources are being used
in the most cost-effective and relevant manner possible. The results of
these studies and re-engineering efforts are expected to provide
meaningful business information that will guide the Service's decision-
making and frame future management initiatives.
While the Service has remained steadfast to its mission and devoted
to providing quality services to the Congress, CRS cannot afford to be
static. An organization serving the Congress that is unable to change
quickly, alter itself to increase efficiency, or adapt to new
requirements is an organization bound to fail. CRS is mindful of this
reality and has continually sought out and acted on pragmatic
approaches that lead to improvements to better fulfill its mission.
Despite the many changes in Congress and within CRS, the Service of
today is identical to the Service of 1914 in one way: our dedication to
our mission to provide balanced, nonpartisan, authoritative expertise
to the Congress, on time, on target and in forms useful to lawmakers.
We will never change the course of our direction.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REALIGNMENT SAVINGS
Senator Allard. So there is approximately $4.4 million in
savings, and how is that reflected in the Library's 2007 budget
request?
Mr. Mulhollan. You mean the 59 affected staff? Well, to
give you an example----
Senator Allard. The savings from that, yes.
Mr. Mulhollan. Yes, but part of that savings, I think it
cost roughly $600,000 to be able to provide a $25,000
separation incentive to each person. We used the balance of
those salaries for the remainder of that fiscal year to provide
the separation incentives, as an example. Because we had an
overall $3.6 million--excuse me--$3.1 million shortfall, if you
recall, last fiscal year and the committee gave us $1 million
of our $3.1 million request to keep us at 729 FTEs. So we have
requested a permanent reduction to 705, because we do not have
enough money in our base in order to sustain the service at the
729.
As a consequence of this, you recall I mentioned that we
were focusing our resources to maintain our analytical
capacity. We are going to end up with a smaller workforce
configuration--maintaining the number of analysts needed to do
the research and analytic work for the Congress, but fewer
overall support staff.
CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE STAFF
Senator Allard. In your testimony you state that extensive
consultation took place before you decided to eliminate
production support, computer technical support, and audio-
visual functions. With whom did you consult?
Mr. Mulhollan. The individual who did the studies spoke to
every one of the affected staff in the examination of their
positions.
Senator Allard. So the CRS staff was consulted?
Mr. Mulhollan. They were interviewed with regard to what
they were actually doing and what the functions described in
their position descriptions were.
Senator Allard. This was done before you made your
decision, I assume?
Mr. Mulhollan. That is correct. They all were able to say,
``this is what I do.''
Senator Allard. Okay. Now, there are 31, as you mentioned,
that still have not landed, so to speak, and could be subject
to that reduction in force. What action specifically are you
taking to work with the rest of the Library to find positions
for those 31 staff?
OPTIONS FOR DISPLACED EMPLOYEES
Mr. Mulhollan. Well, first we are continuing to provide
career counseling and career transition support--how to write a
resume, classes on how to apply for a job in the civil service.
That is ongoing and available to each one of those 31 affected
staff.
In addition, we are working closely with the Library of
Congress and the head of the Library's human resources
services. The Library has a great track record, from prior
reduction-in-force events, of being able to find positions for
those individuals. There is a commitment across the senior
management of the Library, for which I am quite grateful, to do
whatever possible to try to ensure that in fact there may be
positions. While there are no guarantees, we are going to do
everything possible to place any remaining staff.
That is why that approval of our proposed administrative
provisions would be helpful for us in the future.
RETIREMENT INCENTIVES
Senator Allard. This is for Dr. Billington. In January
about 186 employees took advantage of an early retirement and
buyout incentive offered Library-wide, including the CRS staff
we were talking about. Can you explain why the buyout was
offered, what job functions were eliminated, and how much
funding was freed as a result of the buyout, and how you are
redirecting those funds?
Dr. Billington. I did not understand the last two points
you made.
Senator Allard. Well, let's see. Explain why the buyout was
offered and then what job functions were eliminated, and then
how much funding was freed up as a result of the buyout. Why do
we not just take them one at a time. Why did you offer the
buyout?
Dr. Billington. Well, I think we will provide, with your
agreement, the statistics for the record. I can answer the
question in general and then we will give you the detailed
statistics.
WORKFORCE TRANSFORMATION
First of all, we have a very large number of people who are
eligible to retire. It is an aging workforce. This is the
beginning of a general workforce transformation process and we
wanted to give a significant buyout opportunity, which quite a
number of people took.
On the day our employees were leaving, I met with many of
them, and they said they appreciated the buyout.
It is part of the workforce transformation we are
undergoing into the digital era. The buyout was a way of
offering an opportunity to leave, which a great many people
took.
I might point out that in the current budget submission the
$781,000 is to assist the workforce transformation. We want to
develop some newly defined digital competencies. We want to
build leadership skills for people from the GS-5 to GS-9
category. We want to do everything we can to retrain as many
staff members as possible and expand the range of
opportunities.
This is a direction in which we are trying to move as
rapidly as we can. We have to also recruit new people from the
outside, but we really genuinely want to give as much
opportunity for other jobs in the Library. The Library as a
whole is facing a need to transform itself and there cannot be
any guarantees, but I want to assure you that the Library as a
whole will make every effort to make available alternate
opportunities for people whose present functions are becoming
obsolete. We have brought on as the head of training somebody
who has had experience with one of the more successful programs
in the Federal Government and we have been beefing up that
staff.
We are very concerned about this problem in human terms,
but at the same time we simply have to move ahead with this
kind of transformation if the Library is going to continue to
serve the Congress and the Nation properly.
We will provide you statistics and details for the record.
[The information follows:]
During fiscal year 2006, the Library requested approval
from Congress to offer separation incentives and from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to offer early
retirements. Consistent with the legislation governing these
incentives and early retirements, the Library indicated that it
needed to reshape and renew its workforce to match the highly-
specialized skill sets that are replacing outmoded ways of
filling its mission. Both Congress and OPM approved these
requests. It should be noted that the Chief Human Capital
Officers Act of 2002 (title 13 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 107-296), contained an explicit sense of
Congress that the legislation's intent was to reshape and not
downsize the Federal workforce. Since, 2002, executive branch
agencies have used these authorities to meet the changing needs
of the 21st century. In fiscal year 2005, Congress granted the
legislative branch authority comparable to that of the
executive branch. Thus the Library's implementation plan is
consistent with the purpose of the Act; to reshape--not
downsize its workforce.
The Library's fiscal year 2006 separation incentive
programs addressed specific, critical workforce requirements in
the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Library Services
(LS), and Integrated Support Services (ISS). In the case of
CRS, advances in technology, its deployment in the Service, and
the technical skill level of incoming analytical staff rendered
obsolete the services provided by its production support staff,
technical support assistants, and audio-visual staff. In
addition, CRS required information professionals who could meet
the redefined work, competencies, and skills sets of the
Knowledge Services Group, created to better use the skills of
librarians and other information professionals to serve the
needs of Congress. Library Services needed to re-engineer its
functions, redesign jobs, retrain current staff, and recruit
new staff to meet the Library's digital requirements. For
example, in the acquisitions and cataloging areas, staff will
be required to manage digital assets that have distinctive
retrieval and preservation requirements--more complicated than
the traditional handling of printed books and journals. With
more than 3 billion ``hits'' on the Web site annually,
questions once asked in person are now coming from individuals
we will never see in person. As a result, reference assistance
and more collection curation must be performed online, changing
the profile of and skills needed from a reference staff.
Technological changes have also required new skill sets on the
part of ISS staff. For example, printing is now created with
sophisticated computerized tools and electronically transmitted
with customer-driven requirements that generate high-impact
graphics and images unimagined only a few years ago. Similarly,
facility operations staff must have technical expertise to
monitor buildings adequately and effectively with the
sophisticated and integrated systems required by today's high
technology workforce.
Approximately $16 million supported the salaries and
benefits of the 186 employees participating in the early out
and buyout programs. Redirection of this funding will enable
the Library to hire new staff more quickly rather than waiting
for current staff to retire at some unknown point in the
future, increase contract support capacity--in areas where
flexibility in staff support is needed as business plans evolve
and are implemented, and invest in new equipment needed to
support our innovative programs. This funding, combined with
the $781,000 requested for workforce transformation, will
ensure that the Library has the tools--that include not only
separation incentives and early retirements, but also staff
training, mentoring, career planning and counseling and digital
competency skills development, needed to implement an
integrated workforce renewal plan. The success of this plan is
highly dependent on the resources available to carry out each
part of the plan. If funding and FTEs are stripped away, the
Library will be in a worse position than had we waited for
employees to retire--a time line that was already impeding the
Library's digital transition and transformation.
IMPACT OF RETIREMENTS
Senator Allard. The detail of these questions that we are
asking is to provide us a thorough and complete answer. So the
rest of the question on what job functions were eliminated and
how much funding was freed up as a result of the buyout and how
you are redirecting those funds, we would like to have a
detailed answer on that. If you do not have that information in
front of you now, we will give you a chance to give us a
written response.
Dr. Billington. Yes, sir.
Did you want to add anything?
General Scott. No, I think that is the most appropriate way
to handle it.
Senator Allard. Is that fine, General Scott?
General Scott. Yes, sir.
COPYRIGHT REENGINEERING PROGRAM
Senator Allard. Let me move on to the copyright
reengineering. Now, that office has been engaged in a 6-year
effort to overhaul its work processes, a project which involves
major space renovation. The subcommittee provided over $9
million in the fiscal year 2006 budget for temporary office
space and renovation of the existing space in the Madison
Building. The effort now is 6 months behind, I am told.
Why has it been delayed and what is the impact on cost and
is the project now on track for completion in 2007?
Dr. Billington. It is on track now. The delay was caused
because of the difficulty the General Services Administration
(GSA) had in finding a place that could house the Copyright
Office for only 1 year instead of the conventional longer term
lease, while the final stages of the reengineering were taking
place. There were three different changes of locations
resulting in changes to design specifications and so forth.
There was a delay, but it is on track now and we are expecting
that in July of this year, they will move out to another
location in Crystal City and in July of the following year,
they will be back in their full reengineered mode.
Meanwhile, the pilots and electronic registration are on
track, if you want details, we have Julia Huff--the Register is
unfortunately not available to be here today, but Julia Huff
from the Copyright Office can answer this.
REENGINEERING PROJECT DELAYS
Senator Allard. In your efforts in working with the
Architect of the Capitol and GSA, what could prevent the type
of problems you have encountered in future projects of this
kind?
Dr. Billington. Well, General Scott, do you want to address
that?
General Scott. I have got some general ideas, but I think
it would be best if we could hear from Julia, who has really
been intimately involved in trying to re-schedule and keep
things on track that mostly were way beyond the Library's
control. Is Julia here?
Ms. Huff. Yes.
Senator Allard. Julia, do you want to give the lessons
learned?
Ms. Huff. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will. One thing that might
have helped--we started working with GSA in early 2004, and we
probably would have benefited from having our own project
manager onboard at that time, and we did not add that project
manager until 2005. He, along with the facilities team, has
really kept on top of GSA and tried to move them along.
The lesson we have learned from GSA is that they have a
very structured, layered organization and it just takes more
time than we anticipated to get paperwork approvals,
negotiations, and the like moved through all required steps.
Senator Allard. In short, they are bureaucratic?
Ms. Huff. Yes, you might say that.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Ms. Huff. They did not really respond immediately to our
request for leased space. When they did, the space was too
small, and then they switched buildings on us twice in Crystal
City. All of this caused delays in the design. We had to do
redesigns of the architectural work, for electrical work, for
voice and data. We incurred more costs and delays because of
these changes.
So yes, we are behind and it is because of the facilities
piece. We might have started in 2003, but 2 years seemed like
plenty of lead time when we first began.
NATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER--CULPEPER STATUS
Senator Allard. Very good.
On the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center. The
Library will be taking possession of this new National Audio-
Visual Conservation Center in early 2007. I really appreciate
the opportunity to go out and tour that center, and I think we
are all very appreciative of the Packard Foundation and all
they have done as far as providing citizens of this country a
very good facility.
I would just like to have an update on what the status is
of this privately funded construction project, and then once it
is operational do we have any idea what the annual operations
and maintenance costs might be for that? I want to make sure we
are making allowances for that in future budgets.
Dr. Billington. We can try to give you a precise estimate.
[The information follows:]
The Library's five-year request to Congress to acquire the
new equipment and staff resources necessary to operate the
NAVCC concludes in fiscal year 2008. Full initial operations
will begin in fiscal year 2009, and ongoing annual costs
beginning that year will be approximately $23.4 million for the
Library. This estimate does not include the AOC's operating and
maintenance costs for this facility. This estimate includes
$11.4 million for salaries and benefits of the 139 Motion
Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound (MBRS) employees, 127
of which will be located at the Culpeper facility, $7 million
for preservation digitization, $3.5 million for storage, and
$1.5 million for infrastructure support. The operating
capacities reflected in these costs were established based on
our urgent need to preserve at-risk national heritage
collections dating back nearly 120 years, as well as the need
to begin ingesting significant new born-digital works.
Fortunately, the proven technologies to achieve this have
recently become available, and the Packard Humanities
Institute's gift of the state-of-the-art NAVCC facility will
allow the Library to take advantage of these technologies for
the first time.
Dr. Billington. We were actually applying for less money
for this because there was significant reduction in FTEs from
last year, because a lot of that was for the transition period,
where we had to install things in sequence and that required a
little bit of a buildup in the last couple of years.
We can give you an estimate of how it looks. The current
situation is that in November they turned over the ownership of
the central plant to the Architect of the Capitol. This is a
complex operation because the work is basically being done by
the Packard Humanities Institute, but we are putting in the
infrastructure. In December they turned over the ownership of
the collections building to the AOC for occupancy by the
Library and we have already begun moving staff and
collections--we have six collection maintenance employees now
out there working, and the first collection items just this
past month were moved from Capitol Hill. The remaining
collections will be staged for relocation from many different
storage locations to be centralized into one location
throughout this calendar year.
Construction continues on the conservation building and the
nitrate vaults. The conservation building is where most of the
staff will be moved. We will be saving $500,000 of annual lease
costs, starting in 2008 as a result of the collections being
moved to Culpeper.
NATIONAL AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER--PACKARD CONTRIBUTION
Mr. Chairman, I cannot say exactly what the cost
contribution from the Packard Humanities Institute will be, but
it looks like it will be the largest single private capital
contribution to a Government building in history. We have to
confirm that. It would not be if you multiplied by inflationary
factors. But it is a very, very major contribution.
We think that the base will probably not be very different
from what it is once we get over this bump. I will try to give
you as precise estimates as we can of what is anticipated. It
is going to be really quite an amazing facility. One thing that
is particularly interesting and important about this for the
long-range cost is that the capacity is so great out there that
we should be able to accommodate for many, many years to come,
even decades to come, the anticipated storage need. It is also
the first facility that will have digital storage capability,
so this is very, very important. It will reflect the standards
that Congress asked the Library to establish some years back
for audio-visual conservation. It will be the largest and the
most up to date facility of its kind anywhere.
By this time next year it ought to be functioning, when it
is finally conveyed from the Packard Humanities Institute
through the Architect of the Capitol to the Library for its
usage.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Senator Allard. I want to press you a little bit on the
Government Performance and Results Act. I would like to have
you present this subcommittee with a few examples of how the
Library measures its program performance and makes budget
decisions based on program effectiveness.
I want something specific. So if you can answer that
question for us if you are prepared to. I suspect you may not
be, and you could present us a written presentation about some
specific programs where you are applying it and making
administrative decisions based on what you are seeing on the
performance objectives.
[The information follows:]
Since 1997, the Library has used the GPRA model as a guide in
developing and implementing its strategic plans and annual operating
plans and performance reports. Library programs have made significant
progress in developing goals and objectives that focus on measurable
outcomes rather than outputs. Consistent with GPRA requirements, the
Library is once again reviewing and revising its strategic plan which
will include major changes to its goals, performance measures and
targets, and assessment systems.
As part of the Library's annual budget process, each office reviews
their base resources to determine if additional investments are needed
to support the Library's goals and objectives. Over the past few years,
this review has become increasingly important, as the transition to the
digital age has required ongoing reengineering of our work processes.
Based on congressional direction and cognizant of Federal budget
realities, the Library took a hard look within and across organizations
in determining its resource requirements for fiscal year 2007. As a
result, our fiscal year 2007 budget request reflects only a 4 percent
increase over fiscal year 2006, and a net decrease in FTEs--reflecting
mostly mandatory pay and price level increases. Despite these limits on
our budget request, the Library will continue to maintain relevance in
the digital age with enhanced strategic planning and workforce
transformation.
Some examples of how Library program offices applied GPRA
principles in administrative and budget decisions include the
following:
Copyright Office
As a standard practice, the Copyright Office monitors productivity
and staffing levels and adjusts hiring and overtime decisions based on
trends in receipts, productivity, processing time and amounts of work
in process. Based on these reviews, the Copyright Office has taken
actions such as cross-training staff to perform work in areas needing
assistance, focused overtime in areas where processing time was longer,
prioritized hiring for areas that were lagging in production. These
decisions were factors in a more than 50 percent reduction in average
processing time for registrations since 2001.
The Copyright Reengineering Project is a multi-year effort to
improve Copyright's business processes based on an analysis of its
current services to the public. With the reengineering study
recommendations, the Copyright Office developed a multi-year planning
and budgeting strategy to reconfigure its current facilities, build a
new IT system, and reorganize its staff within the new business
processes. After the implementation of the reengineered processes and
based on processing times, productivity rates and customer satisfaction
findings, the Copyright Office will determine whether to reduce
staffing in areas identified as overstaffed, reallocate and reassign
staff based on workload across all areas and/or modify functions. One
or all of these actions may result in changes in future budget
requests.
The Copyright Office planned for a significant reduction in renewal
fee receipts in fiscal year 2006 and beyond. The number of renewals has
decreased over the past several years based on statutory changes that
made renewal registration voluntary. As a result, the Copyright Office
has requested a permanent decrease in its offsetting collections
authority and a reduction of five FTEs in fiscal year 2007. The
Copyright Office also determines its fees using activity-based costing
methodologies to review costs of providing services while giving due
consideration to the purposes of the copyright system and the statutory
requirement that the fees be fair and equitable. As a result of this
review, the Copyright Office submitted a new fee proposal to Congress
on March 1, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
In early January-May 2005, CRS undertook three comprehensive
studies of support areas: Production and Administrative Support,
Technical Support Assistants, and Audio-Visual Support. The objectives
of the studies were to identify the services and tasks currently
performed by these support groups, determine the extent to which the
services and tasks met the broader CRS staff support needs, identify
any unmet support needs, and determine the most efficient and effective
ways to satisfy all support needs in the aforementioned areas vis-a-vis
the Service's investments in technology. For the past few years, these
support functions were carried out by approximately 59 staff, at an
fiscal year 2006 estimated cost of $4.4 million.
To accomplish these objectives, CRS reviewed the position
descriptions for staff working in the support areas and, to ensure
consistency, developed structured questions to collect needed data from
a range of staff and using several methodologies. CRS conducted
numerous interviews with mid- and senior-level managers, support staff
in all three areas, and other staff who utilized the support services.
Based on the data collected via document reviews, meetings,
consultations, and interviews, CRS compiled comprehensive lists of the
support services and tasks performed in each support area. Afterwards,
study participants (i.e. managers, support staff, and users of the
support services) were given copies of the lists and asked to verify
the extent and frequency which the support staff performed the
identified services/tasks.
The analysis supporting these studies led the Service's leadership
to recognize that the services and tasks provided by the 59 positions
had been overtaken by advances in technology (desktop tools and
operating environment) and were no longer needed. The analysis
demonstrated that new and different services and tasks were needed;
therefore leading to a workforce re-engineering of the administrative
staff. CRS has announced its intention to abolish the 59 outdated
positions, effective September 30, 2006. The Service has also developed
a cadre of fewer and new positions that will provide administrative
support.
The Service's current budget can afford approximately 705 FTEs;
however with the 2006 one percent rescission and the prospect of a
similar action in 2007, CRS may need to adjust its FTE estimated
ceiling down again. Retaining the 59 staff indefinitely would have
adversely impacted the Service's ability to sustain an analytic
capacity of between 335 and 350 staff while at the same time adjusting
its total workforce to the 705 ceiling. The long-term results of the
CRS workforce re-engineering will be to free up FTEs and funding which
can be redirected to maintain the needed level of analytic capacity for
the Congress.
For several years, CRS has maintained a business activity that
provides courier delivery and pick-up services directly to and from all
Congressional member offices, Congressional committee offices, the
Capitol and CRS Research Centers as well as intra-Service mail pick-up
and delivery. The operation has been staffed with a combination of
contractor personnel and CRS staff--and at the time of the review
(early- to mid-2005), the operation was staffed with 11.5 contractor
personnel (including an on-site supervisor) at an annual cost of
$432,000 and three CRS mail clerks at an annual cost of $131,500, for a
total cost for this business activity of $563,500. The contract was at
the end of its five-year life; and, as a result, CRS took advantage of
an opportunity to analyze fully the current workload statistics data as
a means of updating the contract to better reflect the new ways in
which CRS communicates with and provides information to the Congress--
increasingly via electronic means.
CRS staff gathered, assimilated and analyzed historical financial
cost information on each element of the work performed under this
contract. They conducted extensive interviews with an on-site
supervisor, particularly regarding tasks performed, methods employed,
and operating procedures; staff toured the facilities, witnessed
operations, conducted survey-level time and motion studies, spoke with
the couriers, and discussed problems encountered and solutions
developed; staff interviewed the CRS Contracting Officer's Technical
Representative (COTR) regarding services performed under the contract,
the history of the contractual services, and the performance of the
contractor as well as performance standards prior to outsourcing; staff
gathered, assimilated, and analyzed month-by-month statistical data,
from 1999 through 2005 including: delivery of packages and books to
Congressional offices (CRS provides this service the entire Library of
Congress), pick-up of packages and books from Congressional offices,
sorting and bundling of non-rush Congressional mail and delivery to
House and Senate Post Offices, preparation of mail for Congressional
district offices, and sorting of CRS mail.
The study concluded that the activity continues to provide a vital
service which supports the core mission of CRS--basic to meeting the
needs and fulfilling the requests of Congress and Congressional staff
for information. Customer surveys, from both Congressional and CRS
staff, reflected a high satisfaction level with both the service and
the performance of the contractor. However, the workload statistics
data confirmed that the number of items exchanged via the courier
service had been, and continues to decline each year. The analysis
revealed that the services could likely be performed by one, and
possibly two, less personnel.
The study results provided CRS staff with substantive data that
produced a re-negotiated contract with ten contractor personnel and one
CRS staff--a total annual cost reduction of $84,000 which has been
redirected back into the Service's overall budget.
CRS has for many years maintained a contractor-operated technology
help desk. The contract covered four highly skilled personnel to
provide immediate desktop services to CRS staff. While there was no
debate about the on-going need for desktop services given CRS's
reliance on technology tools, this contract was at the end of its five-
year life and warranted a thorough review in order to redefine the
scope of work and level of expertise needed to match the technology
environment of 2006 and beyond. This study was conducted at about the
same time as the functional review of approximately 18 Technical
Support Assistants.
The review began with an examination of the contract documentation,
contractor workload statistics, monthly billings over the life of the
contract, interviews with CRS program personnel, principally the COTR,
to gather data on such questions as the services provided under the
contract, the need for the activity, the definition of successful
service delivery, methods and factors used to evaluate the contractor's
performance. The financial data and contractor workload statistics were
analyzed. The review included an assessment of contractor levels,
current workload and the real cost of the activity, including the CRS
management overhead, contractor management fees, and the cost of CRS
staff with greater technical expertise at the GS-14 level who handle
escalated service calls which are outside the scope of the help desk
contract. Based on the review of documentation, interview data, and
financial information, alternative methods of performing the activity
were developed and a cost and benefits alternatives analysis was
prepared.
On the surface, the viable alternatives costed out within $50,000
per year of each other; however, best business practices support that
contracts typically provide the better short-term solution when the
environment is changing. The Service's recent need for expanded help
desk hours of coverage to better match the work hours of CRS analysts
and information professionals (from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.) is one
example of needed flexibility. Another example is the need for expanded
expertise to help integrate new software and operating systems into the
Service's products, e.g., with sophisticated graphics and tables. The
entire technology environment in CRS is undergoing a major
transformation as the Service moves to a new authoring and publishing
system. A contract will ensure that CRS has the flexibility to respond
quickly to the specific work skills needed by the Service and to keep
pace with continuing changes/advances in the field. This kind of
flexibility could not be achieved with federal employees employed under
specific job classifications, grade levels, or in a union environment,
such as CRS, where ``changes in work conditions'' are generally
bargainable. Even changes in work hours cannot be effected easily with
CRS employees in the bargaining unit.
The new help desk contract will be awarded within the next few
months.
Library Services
After analyzing its in-house costs for processing the same
materials and seeking to reduce its costs, the Library contracted with
its Italian book vendor to supply shelf-ready books. These books
arrived at the Library fully cataloged, labeled and ready to be added
to the collections for immediate use. As a result, three acquisitions
staff were freed up to be reassigned to other critical processing
tasks. The Library expects to use this model to expand to other book
vendors for future contracts to continue to reduce its processing
costs.
Taking advantage of the functionality of the Web, the Library
implemented a Web based exchange program to enhance its acquisition of
materials through exchange. Stemming from a business process
improvement project, the program improves the Library exchanges with
its partners; reduces Library staff time needed to manage and execute
the program; reduces space needed to store the duplicate material to be
offered on exchange; and reduces the number of times items are
physically handled. The Library's new Web program--which now has over
740 participants--facilitates its ability to receive reciprocal items
from the exchange partners to help build its collections at much
reduced costs. In fiscal year 2005, the Library's acquisitions
divisions received 148,696 pieces from its exchange partners.
The Cataloging in Publication (CIP) Program was established in 1971
to provide advance cataloging copy for publications most likely to be
acquired by the Nation's libraries. Since the Program's inception,
Library staff have produced catalog records for 1.3 million titles,
saving public and research libraries the cost of creating these
records. As an efficiency measure, the Program--which has over 5,000
publishers that submit their prepublication data--has made the
transition to electronic processing using the Web. The Electronic CIP
Program (ECIP)--which now has over 3,600 publishers participating--has
saved staff time (equal to three full time staff), has dramatically
reduced throughput time for processing titles, and has overall reduced
the per title cost of processing CIP titles. The Library saves annually
$10,000 in postage as a result of not having to mail cataloging data in
print form to the publishers. ECIP has enabled the Library to achieve
additional savings by having other research libraries take on the
cataloging of preprint publications--Cornell University and
Northwestern University currently contribute annually approximately 200
cataloged titles.
The Library's bibliographic access divisions have analyzed the
costs of producing a catalog record. The costs are driven by both the
complexity of the cataloging rules and procedures and by the level of
staff who create the records. To address the latter, the Library
instituted a pilot in one of its divisions to have technicians use
catalog records produced by other libraries as the basis for the
Library of Congress record. Using lower level staff has yielded
measurable gains. The division's production of copy cataloging
increased by thirty percent between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005 (from 9,725 titles to 12,670). Concomitant to the division's
increase in copy cataloging output was a one-third decrease in the
number of hours devoted to more expensive full, original cataloging
between the two fiscal years (from 67,582 hours to 57,231). This model
will serve in planning fuller scale use of technicians for processing
functions commensurate with their level of expertise.
The Library has worked with the library community to reduce the
complexity and cost of producing catalog records. In collaboration with
the library community, an analysis was done of the record content with
a goal of removing elements that were not necessary to provide
satisfactory service to users seeking information. The resulting
record, ``a core level catalog record,'' reduces the cost for
cataloging per item by as much as 43 percent. The Library has now
adopted the core level record as its default catalog record. These
records meet the needs of end user while meeting the needs of other
libraries to provide access to their collections.
In fiscal year 2005 Library Services contracted with an information
services research firm to assist with a strategic assessment of the
needs and expectations of the National Library's constituents. A
nationwide survey is currently underway to gather data that will be
used in the process of assessing the effectiveness of National Library
programs. The results from this and other data-collection efforts will
inform future Library Services administrative decisions.
RESULTS-BASED DECISIONMAKING
General Scott. Yes, sir. We could answer the question now,
but in the interest of time, I would----
Senator Allard. We have time.
General Scott. The way the Library implements its planning
process is the Librarian each year issues guidance to each one
of the program offices within the Library, and he gives his
objectives and goals around which the other programs have to
respond and then come up with theirs. The offices will come up
with an annual plan, and that annual plan is based upon the
measurable task, where possible. Now, all the tasks cannot be
measured, but where they can be measured, offices list those
tasks that will be accomplished.
Then when the budget has been put together, those tasks and
those goals become part of our operating plan that we submit to
the Congress.
In addition to coming up with the annual plan, we also have
for the senior managers, a performance evaluation system that
reflects what goals and objectives they have worked on and
achieved during the past calendar year. Those objectives and
goals are very specific and do tie back to the budget.
Senator Allard. Can you give us some examples of where
there was not adequate performance for one reason or another?
General Scott. There was inadequate?
Senator Allard. Where there was not adequate performance
and because of inadequate performance maybe you reduced that
function, perhaps shifted dollars to another area of the
Library where there was better performance. Can you think of
some examples like that in your budget?
General Scott. I cannot off the top of my head give you an
example of that.
Senator Allard. That is what we are looking for. It is
those kinds of administrative decisions that you may have been
making in the Library of Congress, where they actually had an
impact on how you managed the program. Maybe you took some
money from it because you perceived the performance could have
been better and should have been better and you had to
reevaluate it. Perhaps you had another area over here where you
saw a need, where they were meeting the goals and objectives,
and maybe shifted a little.
We are looking for some specific examples of applications.
You are saying the right things, but we are just looking for
areas you can point to where you actually used that to make
administrative decisions.
General Scott. Yes, sir, we understand and we will get you
some examples.
Senator Allard. If you feel like you need some help in
outlining that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) does
a good job on objectives and making some decisions on that.
Maybe to consult with them might be helpful in tailoring what
we are looking for as far as program guidance. Okay?
General Scott. Yes, sir, we will do that.
DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS PROGRAM
Senator Allard. On to the Books for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped. You have been working on it for several
years to develop what we call a digital talking book to replace
the current cassette-type system, to make books available to
the blind. Over the next several years, approximately $75
million will be requested to produce the new machines.
In fiscal year 2006 you plan to spend $12 million to
purchase the old machines which will soon become obsolete. Why
do we need to purchase any additional cassette machines in 2006
when I am told there are over 700,000 cassette machines
currently in circulation, inventory, or repair? Then maybe
during this you might talk a little bit about the status of the
new plan.
Dr. Billington. I think we will ask Mr. Kurt Cylke, who is
the Director of that program, up. But I just want to say that
we have to maintain the service and we have to maintain the
inventory during the transition. We are on the schedule that
has been long established by Mr. Cylke and by the service, but
we cannot have a drop in the current analog service until the
digital program is operational. We are asking for a $19 million
startup. That was what was always intended. That is not a
change in the plan.
We cannot have a drop-off in the service in the meantime.
Mr. Cylke can elaborate.
CASSETTE MACHINE REPLACEMENT
Senator Allard. Do we have cassette recorders over here
that could be repaired, that we could put in without having to
buy new ones during this transition period?
Mr. Cylke. We have, Mr. Chairman. We have approximately
740,000 cassette machines in the field. Many of them--most of
them, of course, are in use by individuals. There are a certain
number of inventory and then there are a certain number being
repaired.
Let me get to your original question of why we are buying
machines in 2006. Working very closely with the Inspector
General, we had a study performed that projected out the needs
for the cassette machine until we can get into the digital
program. We have 23 million copies of books in libraries and
warehouses around the United States. We have the 700,000
machines using them and we are going into the digital age.
As you heard from Dr. Billington, we are proposing to
request $19.1 million a year for the next 4 years into the
budget to permit us to buy those digital machines, and then
withdraw the additional funds from the budget and go on.
However we need cassette machines to keep the people who are in
the program now able to use the millions of books and magazines
that are available.
Senator Allard. Would you agree with these figures: We have
about 133,517 available for loan from the Library?
Mr. Cylke. That is correct.
Senator Allard. So that we have a total of 720,000----
Mr. Cylke. Something close to that. That is correct. Yes.
Senator Allard. Okay. And then an additional 42,000
machines you are planning on buying in 2006?
Mr. Cylke. That is correct. As a matter of fact, I believe
the contract will be signed today or tomorrow. Again, what we
did was make an in-depth study of the number of machines that
we would require to keep the cassette program going until we
can get into the digital program. This is our final buy of
machines.
This report was done by an outside contractor, reviewed by
Mr. Schornagel, the Inspector General, and his staff.
Suggestions were made and the number of machines, the 40,000
plus, was based on a review with the Inspector General.
Senator Allard. Then you are just going to flat drop off a
cliff so to speak?
ANALOG-DIGITAL TRANSITION
Mr. Cylke. There will be no future purchase. That is it. We
have been in the cassette program from the early 1970s, but
this is our last purchase of cassette machines.
Senator Allard. And you are going to phase these out?
Mr. Cylke. They are going to be phased out, but the new
machines that come in--again, we have millions of copies of
books on the shelves for use in the cassette format. All these
books for the last 2 years and into the future will be in
digital masters. The digital machine will be available to us in
the beginning of 2008 and it just depends on how much money or
how the funds are made available by the Congress as to how many
we can build.
But we would expect to buy over a 4-year period the great
bulk of those machines.
Senator Allard. Are these machines that you have now in a
format that can easily be transferred over to the digital
format?
Mr. Cylke. The machines are not--the machines are analog
cassette machines. They are four-track, half-speed cassette
machines. But the analog books that are available on the
shelves we are converting at a rate of a couple of thousand a
year of the more important titles. Now, obviously in a public
library environment many of the books would not be replaced.
But we are converting things like the classics where we have
them and going through what we call an A to D process, analog
to digital.
We should have 20,000 digital books by 2008. That would be
reconversion as well as new books that have been mastered that
way.
Senator Allard. The public will use the analog and the new
ones that you are going to put on the digital?
Mr. Cylke. Digital only.
Senator Allard. Digital only?
Mr. Cylke. Well, analog and digital for 1 or 2 years.
Senator Allard. But then as those others get used up, then
you will put them on digital; is that your plan?
Mr. Cylke. If I understand what you are saying, would the
23 million copies be converted. We will convert only the ones
that will be of continuing use. In other words, every year we
do a certain number of fiction items, best sellers.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Cylke. They certainly would not--old best sellers would
certainly not be converted. I do not want to offend anyone,
but----
Senator Allard. You do not want to offend anybody's
favorite book here.
Mr. Cylke. Right.
Senator Allard. Now, I want to refer to the IG here. Do you
have some comments on this program? Do you think that we are
going in the right direction? Can you comment on that?
DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS AUDIT
Mr. Schornagel. Yes, I do. My office issued an audit report
on this program back in 2002 that deals a lot with the issues
that you are raising and recommended that a formal analysis be
done to bridge the transition from the analog to the digital
technology and reduce the number of purchases of new machines,
and that has been done; and also to increase the repairs of the
used machines.
My office has been very actively involved in the last few
years in supporting cost analysis and negotiation strategies
with this contractor, and has resulted in several million
dollars in savings. I think that the old analog machine
purchases are necessary. The fact that we are going to cut it
off, we really could not justify paying higher unit costs to
buy smaller quantities in 2007 and beyond.
It is going to be 2014 to 2017 before these old analog
machines are completely phased out. People have a tendency to
want to hang onto them and not want to change technologies. So
I think that the strategy and the fact that Mr. Cylke is
getting the full life out of all the old machines that the
taxpayers are supporting the purchase of is really a reasonable
approach.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Allard. Let us move on to the Capitol Visitor
Center (CVC) tunnel. There was a report in Roll Call just this
last Tuesday on page 3 that part of the tunnel project might be
paid for out of private funds. Is this an accurate report and
would you like to comment on that article, Dr. Billington?
Dr. Billington. Yes. That is not an accurate report. The
quote of the CVC spokesman was erroneous. The spokesman himself
told my chief of staff yesterday that he had been misquoted and
had already issued a correction. The Library of Congress was
not contacted by the reporter about the article before it was
written, so the issue might have been cleared up before
publication.
Let me make it very clear. We understand and have always
understood that the cap of $10 million is firm and we have
never requested any changes to the construction of the tunnel.
We have always understood this appropriated amount to be a very
firm limitation. The Architect of the Capitol has given us full
assurances that the $10 million appropriated will fully cover
the costs of the construction and Jefferson Building changes as
presently proposed.
I could go into more detail if you want.
Senator Allard. I just want you to clear the record and
make sure you are comfortable that we have the facts on record.
Dr. Billington. Yes. The original appropriation allocation
was $10 million. We understand that the AOC has spent $5.1
million for tunnel construction, which includes a $200,000
contingency, and that just recently they have put out a
contract for $4 million for changes, that was issued just last
week.
That leaves a balance of $900,000 for contingency, which is
well under the $10 million cap.
Senator Allard. Any problem with that cap?
Dr. Billington. We do not see any problems with it, and we
are not requesting any changes or additions.
Senator Allard. I would expect that with the opening of the
Capitol Visitor Center you are going to get more visitors, more
people wanting to visit the Library of Congress. You are not
going to have to negotiate across the street and you will
probably get more members as well as more visitors wanting to
use that tunnel.
Are you expecting a large increase in visitors and are you
doing anything to try and accommodate that?
CELEBRATION OF AMERICAN CREATIVITY
Dr. Billington. Yes. We have been looking into this in some
detail. The estimate has been given that as many as 3.5 million
people will be coming into the new visitors center. We want to
use the public spaces of the Jefferson Building as the focal
point for additional visitors to the Library. We have done some
very careful analysis and planning, with a lot of consultation,
all, I might add, on nonappropriated funds. This is all being
done with private funding--what we will do to prepare for more
visitors will depend on what we can raise from private funding.
The idea will be to celebrate and illustrate and involve
people in one of the most important contributions that the
Congress of the United States has made to the American people.
No other government in the world has as consistently and as
fully preserved the private sector creativity of its people as
has the United States, and in particular the legislative branch
of Government.
Once the Copyright Office was placed in the legislative
branch of Government, we were able to retain in the Library's
collection as closely as possible the mint record of American
creativity. By housing innumerable collections, we have way
over 5 million pieces of music, we have the world's largest
collection of movies, nearly 1 million movies and moving image
titles--these are amazing accomplishments that the Congress has
achieved. We want to celebrate this, which we think will
supplement and round out the story of the Congress and of its
governance, its oversight and legislative functions, which will
be illustrated in the Jefferson Building's expanded exhibits.
We think this will be an important illustration, calling
attention to a great achievement of Congress, which we have
been fortunate enough to be the custodians and administrators
of. This summer we are bringing in interns to find and
illustrate more things in the copyright deposits that can be
celebrated and realized. We will use our public spaces, without
interfering with the traditional usages of the Library, to in a
dignified way both introduce visitors to the importance of
knowledge and to give them some experience of creativity. This
experience will be richly illustrated, not only by the artists
and the performers, but also by the inventors and the other
scientists and inventors that made America the creative country
it is. The creative use of freedom, and the Congress' crucial
role in preserving this record of creativity will be the main
thing we are going to be illustrating and celebrating.
Senator Allard. I think you have a great facility there. As
you know, my wife uses that Library personally--we go over
there and walk the halls and do the searches through the
computer and through your catalogue. I think a lot of Members
send their staff over, but we will wander over there
personally. I would agree that it is a great facility. We
should be very proud of it. We are privileged in this country
to have that kind of a facility available for us.
So we want to do everything we can to help make it better
and continue to make it meet the needs of the American people.
WORLD DIGITAL LIBRARY
Let me move on. I want to talk a little bit about the World
Digital Library. In November the Library entered into a
cooperative agreement with Google to develop a World Digital
Library. Apparently Google is contributing $3 million to this
effort. Could you update us on this project?
Dr. Billington. I think this is very exciting. As you know,
we had close to 4 billion electronic transactions last year.
Our American Memory website has brought more than 10 million
items of American history and culture online. We are continuing
to augment that with materials that highlight creativity and
the culture. In fact, there will be a connection between the
website and exhibit space within the Jefferson Building. The
visitors experience will include an invitation to use our
educational website as well.
What we are adding here, again with this important startup
private money which is purely philanthropic--it is a
nonexclusive arrangement--is putting the memory of other
cultures online.
It is important to dramatize to the world, both to help
America understand the cultures of foreign countries, with whom
we are more and more involved, our already large educational
website and training, facilitating its educational use, to
provide windows into world cultures. We are going to begin with
pilot projects with other countries. We are going to launch the
World Digital Library very carefully, as we did with the
American Memory project that began our educational and
inspirational online presence.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH NATIONAL LIBRARIES
We are going to do it jointly. We already have agreements
with six other national libraries to do joint projects. Our
original project with the Russians, which was funded and
initiated by congressional action, is approaching 1 million
items. We are getting great cooperation from them. They are
giving us access to nearly everything we want.
So we have had a successful startup with special funds, and
now agreements with a wide variety of countries--our most
recent agreement is with the National Library of Egypt. I was
just in Egypt and we are going to expand that collaboration. We
have in our collections the history of Islamic science, which
is something that has been well preserved, not just in Egypt
but also in America and in the Library of Congress.
We are going to be developing and celebrating the memories
of other cultures, which we think will appeal to the other
cultures, with bilingual commentary, and a high audio-visual
component in the middle. This initial grant, and it is a purely
philanthropic one, is one of the first that they have made in
this way. It is going to be a very positive first step.
We are considering particularly expanding into a major
enterprise the small beginnings we have made with Brazil and
Egypt. We will be looking into a variety of prospects to take
our joint projects out to some of the other ancient cultures of
the world and dramatize to them that America has been a
guardian and a preserver of much of the world's cultural
heritage. We will, in cooperation with the repositories in
those countries, present it together, an American and Egyptian
collaboration, and an American and Brazilian collaboration, and
American collaboration with these other countries.
We already have cooperative agreements with six countries,
as I mentioned. We believe that America can play a leading role
in helping develop better communication about the different
cultures of the world that will increase our understanding of
them and their appreciation of what we have done in this
country to preserve their heritage as well as our own.
Senator Allard. Very good.
OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
Now, one last subject I want to cover has to do with the
Open World Leadership Program. With respect to the Open World
Program, I understand that Ambassador James Collins is
undertaking a thorough review of the program at your request.
Can you tell me when this effort will be complete and what
particular aspects of the program may be overhauled? Now I
understand that this is not a part of the Library, but you are
the chair of that program and so I wondered if you could give
us just a brief report on what you expect out of that thorough
review.
Dr. Billington. Yes, sir. We are doing, as we have already
done and are refining within the Library, a comprehensive
strategic plan for the Open World Program. Open World has been
very successful. It is a unique undertaking in the legislative
branch. It has brought more than 10,000 emerging young leaders:
Russians, a growing program with the Ukraine, and startup
experimental programs with Lithuania and Uzbekistan. There have
been many suggestions from Members of Congress and others about
this unique program, which is modeled in a lot of respects on
the 1.5 percent of the Marshall Plan that was spent bringing
young Germans over to the United States after the war. Open
World is bringing over people from the former Soviet Union
after the cold war.
Now, we have tasked Ambassador Collins, who was Ambassador
to Russia when the program was initiated in 1999, to conduct a
strategic plan--and he is a member of the board of Open World,
which of course has an independent existence within the
legislative branch of Government, although certain
administrative functions are performed still by the Library and
I do chair the program.
OPEN WORLD STRATEGIC PLAN
This strategic plan will be completed in late June or early
July. We will present it at the board meeting and if agreed to
by the board, we will provide for the implementation of the
strategic plan. We will be looking at such questions as
possible changes in the nature of the exchanges, which have
been very successful--the areas to be covered. We now cover
rule of law both in Russia and Ukraine, which is so central to
the prospects of democracy--democratic development in those
countries--and that has been an extraordinarily successful
program. That is sure to survive.
But other programs, exactly what we should stress, whether
this should be expanded to other countries and at what level
are under review. We are discussing those issues of course in
the strategic planning process--the staff has been working on
it from the end of last year. The board meeting in December
determined that we will reach conclusions and have the formal
strategic plan from which future budgetary submissions will be
derived.
We will also be looking into, very closely into, possible
economies, and we will be probably making changes. We will
bring on fairly shortly a full-time executive director. We have
had very good leadership up to this point. Geraldine Otremba,
who does our congressional relations, was handling it at first.
Aletta Waterhouse, who was also with it from the beginning, has
been acting director since September. We will have a new
executive director, a permanent appointment that we will be
able to announce very shortly.
That executive director will have a chance to work with and
implement the strategic plan. There are a number of GAO
suggestions, most of which we have already addressed, but they
will be folded in in a full accounting into a full strategic
plan from which we will derive our next budgetary submission.
Our current budget request represents basically a
continuation of what we are doing, more or less, with only a
marginal adjustment this time for unavoidable cost increases,
mostly in air fares.
Senator Allard. I look forward to seeing what that final
report is.
Dr. Billington. We would hope to report to, discuss our
strategic plan with the Appropriations Committees before the
board takes final action on it as well.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Allard. Very good. Thank you.
I do not have anything else. Any summary comments?
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Library for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
genpac
Question. The Library requested a base adjustment for GENPAC of $2
million that is more or less evenly divided between serial and
electronic purchases to ``help keep pace with the greatly increased
cost of serial and electronic materials (without which) risks eroding
the foundation of the many services provided by the Library to the
Congress and the nation.'' The Library's justification notes the
rapidly growing number of electronic journals (approximately 35,000),
and that the cost of journals has been rising at the rate of over 14
percent per year. How much of the Library's costs are for providing the
same information in different formats? What percentage of the journal
collection is available in multiple media? What criteria are used to
decide whether to offer journals in electronic and print formats?
Answer. The Library generally does not purchase content in multiple
formats. In a few instances, when materials exist in both print and
electronic versions, the Library will acquire both.
Duplication of information may occur for several reasons:
--The manner in which publishers package journals into sets or
aggregated databases causes duplicative content to be included
in the Library's acquisitions for the collections. An
electronic database may have several hundred journal titles
included, two-thirds of which are unique to the Library's
collections and therefore wanted. The remaining one-third may
be duplicative of print journals, but because of the value of
the unique two-thirds, the database is acquired (either
purchased or licensed).
--Some publishers provide a free print copy of a journal when the
electronic journal is purchased.
--Electronic publications package their content uniquely, often
offering significantly increased functionality, indexing, and
ability to manipulate it. Because of the value that is added,
the Library is providing a service to Congress and other users
by purchasing an electronic copy, even when a print version is
already in the Library's collections.
Because of the accelerating number of electronic journals being
published and the Library's vast collection of print journals, the
percentage of the journal collection available in multiple formats
cannot be determined. Because the long-term preservation of digital
content still poses a challenge and because the Library has not
completed its development of a digital repository to archive electronic
journals for future generations, the Library has determined that it
must continue to acquire print copies of journals that exist in both
electronic and print form. The Library has taken steps, however, to
mitigate its expenditures for electronic content. It is developing
trusted partnerships with other organizations to ensure long term
access to electronic journal content, which will allow the Library to
cease purchasing duplicate copies of those titles. It also is testing
the deposit of electronic journals for copyright and seeking change in
the legislation for the mandatory deposit of various kinds of
electronic content. The Library further initiated an effort several
years ago to reduce its acquisition of multiple print copies when it
was also acquiring an electronic version, thereby considerably reducing
the duplication.
When deciding on the format of journals, the Library follows these
guidelines:
--If a journal is issued in only one format (print or electronic),
the Library acquires the title based on the importance of the
content.
--Electronic versions of print materials already in the collections
are acquired to improve ease of access or to allow multiple
users access to high-demand content.
--Both print and electronic versions of journals are acquired if the
second format is offered at no additional cost.
--Print or microform journals are acquired when electronic versions
exist, to ensure long term preservation.
Print or microform journals are acquired when electronic versions
exist, pending completion of the Library's development of its digital
repository.
copyright records preservation
Question. How will digitizing these records change your future
maintenance and storage costs?
Answer. The primary purpose of this project is to preserve the
records--to provide an archival backup for the analog records,
protecting against the possibility of loss of this irreplaceable, one-
of-a-kind collection. During the first six years of the project, the
records, including bound record books, microfilm reels, and catalog
cards will be scanned and rudimentary index data will be captured. This
will ensure the records can be archived and be accessed electronically
at a basic level that will facilitate further indexing. However, the
title, author, and copyright owners are not searchable terms in the
rudimentary index. For the public who rely on our records, this index
would not be a substitute for the original records until detailed
indexing is accomplished in future years.
The Copyright Office needs to retain all these analog records until
that time, when the individual electronic records will be integrated
with the post-1977 copyright records currently available for search and
retrieval. The detailed indexing project is estimated to cost as much
as $64 million.
The Copyright Office will continue to house the card catalog on the
fourth floor of the Madison Building to facilitate access for those who
use these records. By the time the first phase of the project is
completed, the Office plans to have its own storage facility at Fort
Meade, maintained by the Architect of the Capitol. The record books,
now in a leased storage facility offsite, would eventually be stored
there. Total savings once Fort Meade storage is available would be
$200,000 per year, increasing each year based on increased volume and
rates charged for commercial storage.
Therefore, digitizing these records for preservation during the
next six years will not have an impact on maintenance and storage
costs. If the detailed indexing is completed in the years following
this first phase, a decision could be made to destroy the analog
record. However, this discussion is years away.
workforce transformation
Question. The request of $781,000 for the renewal and development
of the Library's workforce is described as an initial investment
beginning in fiscal year 2007. Are long range estimates available for
the expected costs of replacing and retraining the workforce? Describe
why these particular initiatives were selected and how they will
directly support a larger workforce plan. Why fund these initiatives
before there is a comprehensive strategic plan to guide the
transformation of the workforce? How does the workforce transformation
project, the strategic planning process, and the program assessment
framework relate? What information do you hope to get out of these
efforts that you currently do not have?
Answer. The Library has and will continue to evaluate all aspects
of its business functions, including work processes, equipment, IT and
other infrastructure support, and staff performing the work. Periodic
reviews are routine business practice but most certainly critical when
the world demands new processes as witnessed by the digital
transformation. The Library's evaluations are taking place under the
broad umbrella of strategic planning and through program specific
assessments. No matter which mechanism is used, people will always play
an important part of any transformation. They are not only a
cornerstone in change itself, but needed to implement change.
Given the aging workforce, with skills once valued but no longer
needed in the future, the Library has begun its workforce
transformation to keep up with new business functions and to lay the
foundation for new functions on the horizon.
Most of the fiscal year 2007 funding requested under workforce
transformation is to support basic services that would be needed even
if a major transformation were not occurring. For example, $225,000
supports 600 online courses, annual subscriptions to leadership
development courses, mentoring programs, and career planning and
counseling--services that are commonplace in most similarly-sized
agencies, but are not currently available or adequately resourced in
the Library. The online and annual subscriptions also provide a more
cost-efficient option for training than the traditional classroom
approach.
A total of $98,000 supports one additional employee in the
Library's learning development center, to ensure the center is fully
staffed and can manage the size of a training program needed for a
large workforce. A total of $127,000 provides interpreter services to
meet the demands of our diverse workforce, including those who are
physically challenged. Finally, $231,000 is for a summer intern
recruitment program that will not only help address the Library's
workload, but also provide a rich pool of candidates for future jobs at
the Library.
The remaining $100,000 goes beyond traditional training but asks
the question of what type of employee and what skills will be needed in
the future. Funding will help determine digital competencies, and it is
this study that will lay the foundation for a more comprehensive
strategic plan for transforming the Library's workforce through
retraining or new hiring--with new and different position descriptions.
Until this analysis is completed, the Library cannot project future
costs but hopes to be in position to do so by the fiscal year 2008
budget.
Without the requested funding, the Library will fall further behind
the rest of the Federal Government and the private sector, costing more
in lost productivity and lost opportunities.
digital competencies
Question. Since fiscal year 2001, the number of items circulated
has declined by over 24 percent and reference services by 17 percent.
Internet transactions have increased by 214 percent. What has the
Library done to redeploy staff? How do these trends relate to your
request for skills training?
Answer. In fiscal year 2007, the Library is requesting $100,000 to
begin the development of a digital competencies initiative. This
initiative will identify what new skills/staff are needed to support
the digital transformation of the Library's services, compare those
skills to staff already on board, and highlight the gaps between the
two. The results will be used to develop a comprehensive staffing and
business plan that will outline action steps and related resources
needed to retrain and/or reassign current staff, hire new staff, and
enhance IT and other equipment to support staff. The Library already
has focused on a few areas such as CRS and Library Services where the
VERA/VSIP programs were used to help retire employees whose skills are
no longer needed, allowing the Library to hire the expertise or
equipment needed to meet the new services and new demands placed upon
the Library as a result of the digital transformation. While offices
will continue their program reviews, the digital competencies
initiative will be a Library-wide review that will not only focus on
each office but on how the Library works as a whole, for a more
cohesive and integrated transition into the future.
congressional research service realignment
Question. CRS determined last year that some 59 production support,
technology support, and audio-visual positions were no longer needed.
You have determined that eliminating the 59 positions will save CRS
approximately $4.4 million. How is this savings reflected in your
fiscal year 2007 budget request? If analysts will become responsible
for tasks previously done by production and technical support staff,
(e.g., formatting, computer problems) won't diversion to non-analytical
tasks lower current efficiencies and effectiveness of CRS employees?
Answer. This question is based upon two fundamentally incorrect
assumptions. First, CRS never stated that the elimination of the 59
positions would ``save'' $4.4 million. CRS is undergoing a workforce
re-engineering effort that will enable the Service to hire different
staff who can contribute directly and fully to meeting the Service's
mission. The funds that would have been used to pay the salaries and
benefits of the 59 support staff will be redirected to pay for
primarily research analysts. The Service's fiscal year 2007 request
reflects a budget that would support the on-going need for
approximately 705 FTEs. There are no savings associated with this
workforce realignment; and retaining the 59 support staff indefinitely
would adversely impact the Service's ability to sustain adequate core
research capacity.
In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CRS requested a one-time budget base
increase to close the gap on rising staff costs and give the Service a
permanent budget base that could sustain a workforce of 729 FTEs. With
only $500,000 approved for this purpose in fiscal year 2006 (none in
fiscal year 2005), the Service had to implement a strategy that would
adjust its permanent workforce down to 705 full-time equivalents (FTEs)
while retaining an analytic capacity of 48 percent to 50 percent of the
total staffing composition--between 335 and 350 staff.
In fiscal year 2005, the House Appropriations Committee explicitly
stated that it expected Legislative Branch agencies to take into
consideration the overall budget constraints placed on the entire
Federal budget and to submit more reasonable requests. At the same
time, the Committee directed agencies to identify opportunities that
would streamline operations, expand outsourcing in a range of operating
activities, utilize existing technology to enhance efficiency, and
implement management changes to increase efficiency and effectiveness
of operations. Further, the Committee directed the Library to conduct a
study to determine whether any duplicative functions existed between
the Library and CRS. The same year, this Committee's report language
stated, ``owing to budget constraints, the Committee is unable to
recommend additional increases.'' These policies were endorsed by the
Conference language encouraging agencies to submit more reasonable
budget requests. Similar policies and concepts were expressed in the
fiscal year 2006 House report language. Agency heads were directed to
embrace change and recognize staff and workforce as the most important
agency asset. Agency heads were directed to look within for ways to
achieve mission as opposed to seeking additional budgetary increases.
In 2006, the Senate re-emphasized the applicability of GPRA. Again, the
Conference language endorsed these policy statements. CRS has heeded
the Congress' direction to find ways to streamline operations and
improve efficiency.
The CRS fiscal year 2007 request reflects the reality of the budget
environment and respectfully recognizes the Congress' expectation that
the Service find a way to accomplish its mission within an organization
of 700 to 705 FTEs. Right now, CRS needs the support of the Congress in
order to continue its efforts for achieving a workforce transformation
using the federal employment tools and authorities available, such as
separation incentives, voluntary early retirements, and possibly a
reduction in force (RIF). The Library is seeking two new administrative
provisions that would give any remaining affected CRS staff (as of
September 30, 2006) opportunities for priority placement in other
federal agencies should a RIF become necessary. Your support and
approval of that request would also be extremely helpful. In 2007, CRS
plans to redirect the funds that would have been used to pay the
salaries and benefits of the 59 staff to acquiring the capacities, work
skills, and competencies needed in 2007 and beyond. Your support of the
Service's fiscal year 2007 full budget request and your endorsement for
maintaining the management flexibility needed to align or realign the
organization to match the changing and complex congressional agenda
within the financial resources available will go a long way in helping
to ensure that the Service can indeed provide the continued level and
quality of services that Congress is seeking.
Second, the question incorrectly assumes that CRS analytical staff
will now be responsible for performing production and/or technical
support tasks--which is not the case. The question incorrectly assumes
that CRS management is not focused on ensuring a most cost effective
and efficient operation--which is also not the case. CRS has always
been committed to providing analysts with the most technologically
robust workstations available. Advances in technology in the past ten
years have provided automated tools on the analyst's desktop with most
of the needed formatting and production capabilities built in; and,
these new technology tools have eliminated much of the need for
production support personnel (the basis of the elimination of these
functions). CRS is currently investing in the development of a new
authoring and publishing system that will even further advance the ease
of incorporating sophisticated graphics, tables, and pictures directly
into CRS reports during the writing/authoring phase. The new system
will allow increased analytic capacity--not decreased capacity. The
system will make creation and dissemination of CRS reports even more
efficient and more readily available to the Congress.
The CRS analysts' needs for publication production support will be
provided centrally by the CRS Electronic Research Products Office
(ERPO) which is staffed by a cadre of experienced editors, skilled in
using advanced technology tools to produce products in multiple
formats. CRS is building capacity in this office as a means to
centralize, streamline, and provide uniform and high quality support
across the Service. At the same time, the CRS Technology Office is
revamping existing contracts to enhance its desktop user support
operations, which will also include up-to-date technology professionals
who can resolve quickly the staff's desktop computer problems. Managing
modern technology in a centralized business model ensures that: (1)
business-relevant technology skills are in place, maintained, and
uniformly accessible to all agency staff; (2) all technology staff are
directed from a singular agency-wide business strategy and perspective;
and, (3) technology staff are provided consistent and uniform training
opportunities based upon general technology refreshment, agency
implementation of new hardware/software, or individual performance
shortcomings. The central call center/help desk concept allows a
computer specialist to gain remote access or ``proxy'' to a personal
computer anywhere in the organization in order to evaluate and
troubleshoot technical problems--giving every CRS employee immediate
access to high quality technology support at their fingertips.
fee service activities
Question. What, if anything, has the Library done to identify
services where it might be appropriate to either charge a fee or raise
current fees?
Answer. Where it is appropriate to charge fees, the Library does so
and in some cases has a formal process for evaluating and raising those
fees.
For example, in 1997 Congress established a new procedure for
setting fees for basic services for the Copyright Office (111 Stat.
1529 (1997), codified at 17 U.S.C. 708(b)). The Copyright Office is
directed to periodically study the costs of providing its basic
services. After determining the costs of those services, it is directed
to consider whether the full cost recovery fee is fair, equitable, and
meets the objectives of the copyright system. If not, the fees may be
adjusted to recover less than full cost. Following this study and
consideration, the Copyright Office sends Congress a report discussing
its study, conclusions, and a proposed fee schedule. This fee schedule
will be adopted unless, within 120 days of receiving the proposal,
Congress passes a law disapproving the proposed fees. The latest
Copyright Office report, with its proposed fee schedule, was sent to
Congress on February 28, 2006.
Additionally, for other than basic services, the Copyright Office
has the authority to set fees by regulation. On March 28, 2006, the
Copyright Office proposed a new fee schedule for these additional
services and invited public comment on this schedule. Also, a new fee
service has been proposed. The comment period for these fees closes on
April 27, 2006. The Office does not expect that Congress will reject
its proposed fees for basic services. Additionally, it expects to
conclude its fee setting rulemaking early in May. The plan is to
institute all the new fees on July 1, 2006.
Under the provisions of the Economy Act of 1932, 31 U.S.C. Sections
1535-1536, the Law Library has entered into Interagency Agreements with
several Executive Branch agencies for services tailored to their
specific needs requiring research and reference products outside the
routine services provided by the Library. Fees are based on billable
hours dedicated to the work performed. Other than contributions
collected under the offsetting collections authority associated with
GLIN and the interagency agreements noted above, there are no other Law
Library activities that would be suitable for charging fees.
Library Services has several revolving funds that charge a fee for
services to inside and outside clients. The revolving funds operate
under revolving fund law and other fund specific legislative
guidelines. As part of the Business Enterprise Work, Library Services
is reviewing all the revolving funds, including services provided and
related fees, and may be proposing changes in the coming fiscal years.
As other work is identified for fee-based services, the Library
will propose legislative language to support those fees.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Dr. Billington, I understand that the retail shop at the
Library of Congress is relocating due to the construction of the
Capitol Visitor Center tunnel. What is the new location? How do you
think the relocation of the shop will affect sales?
Answer. In the summer of 2005, the Library relocated the shop to a
larger location on the west side, beside the Visitor Center and close
to the Capitol Visitor Center tunnel. Floor space has been increased
from 1,100 square feet to 2,000 square feet. In moving the shop, we
also took the opportunity to consolidate stock rooms and storage space
has increased to 2,500 square feet. The following page includes the
floor plans and pictures of the new shop location.
The shop remains in a prominent space within the visitor area of
the Jefferson Building. Given the continued visibility and the
increased floor space, we are expecting the move, in coordination with
other activities, to improve sales. As we develop our plans for the new
visitor experience at the Jefferson building in the fall of 2007, we
will be coordinating the work of the Library's visitor services and
exhibitions offices to enhance our retail presence.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Question. When the CVC opens, there will undoubtedly be many more
visitors coming to the Library. Are you considering expanding your
retail product based on this increase?
Answer. The sales shop will increasingly reflect the visitor
experience of the Great Hall, the collections and art on display, the
special and permanent exhibitions, and the interactive guides
throughout the Jefferson Building.
We are consolidating our product mix to focus on Library-related
merchandise. Our sales figures show that Library-related products
appeal to our visitors, both on site and online. Such Library-related
products generate about 56 percent of total revenue, approximately
$610,000 in fiscal year 2005. Nineteen of our twenty most popular items
(by revenue) are library related. These top sellers generated $290,000
in sales revenues, $100,000 in profits. We will continue to grow the
percentage of inventory dedicated to proprietary Library products,
increasing brand recognition, outreach, and revenue.
Question. Dr. Billington, the Library's fiscal year 2007 request
includes a decrease of 44 FTE's. Can you explain this decrease?
Answer. The Library is reflecting a decrease of 44 FTEs in fiscal
year 2007 as the result of authority expiring in fiscal year 2006,
reduced workload, and/or adjustments needed to align staffing with
available funding. Reductions include a total of 13 FTEs for positions
whose authority expires in fiscal year 2006 (6 FTEs for Culpeper, 1 FTE
for Business Enterprise Project, and 6 FTEs for vacant police
positions), 7 FTEs for reduced workload projected in the Copyright
Office, and 24 FTEs in CRS to align staffing with funds available.
Question. How will the Library's transition into the digital
environment affect its current workforce? What are your plans for
retraining your current workforce?
Answer. As part of our workforce transformation project, we will
follow a systematic process to identify newly required skills and
knowledge for our workforce as we transition into a digital
environment. Until we complete job and skills gap analyses based on new
skills and knowledge requirements, we will not know the full impact on
our workforce. Where retraining is appropriate, we will create
individual development plans and training programs to retrain members
of the current workforce.
Question. In fiscal year 2005, the Library's website experienced a
14 percent increase in usage over fiscal year 2004. How are you
preparing for this continuing trend in increased web usage?
Answer. The Library of Congress website has continued to experience
increases in use both as a result of a general increase in the number
of users online and as the institution continues to add high-quality
digitized material for our online audiences. The Library is projecting
that the rate of increase will continue and build to higher levels over
the next few years as the American public continues to discover and
learn about the wealth of high-quality digitized materials and other
content that we offer.
The Library has begun the implementation of a web metrics program
that includes new monitoring software and services that provide
statistics and analytics to assist the Library in understanding the
profiles of our online users, the web content that they access, the
resulting impact on our supporting technical infrastructure, and our
continued ability to provide high quality online services. This web
metrics program and other tools that the Library uses to measure
supporting infrastructure capacity will assist the Library in
forecasting future usage and in planning capacity accordingly.
To date, the Library has met growing user demand for online content
and has supported the necessary expansion in technical infrastructure
by adjusting our existing budgetary resources. We will continue to
monitor these statistics and other metrics, assess performance, and
weigh alternatives for maintaining high quality online service within
existing resources if at all possible.
Question. Dr. Billington, you have requested $102 million within
the Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2007 request. Can you
prioritize the items in this request for the members of the
subcommittee?
Answer. Of the $102 million requested for the Library of Congress
Buildings and Grounds budget within the Architect of the Capitol's
(AOC) fiscal year 2007 request, approximately $62 million supports 11
projects specifically requested by the Library.
Construction of the Logistics Center at Fort Meade is the Library's
highest priority within the AOC budget. This facility is urgently
needed to address many critical issues, including meeting fire and
safety standards and providing environmentally sound storage for
Library collections. The new facility at Fort Meade is the best overall
investment for the government based on independent space and economic
assessments. Choosing another site is not the solution nor will it
reduce costs. The land at Fort Meade was purchased specifically to
address storage requirements of the Legislative Branch. Leasing, buying
or building storage facilities at other locations would undermine this
master plan. The 100 acres only cost the government one dollar.
Choosing a different construction site would require millions of
additional dollars for land. Upgrading current leased facilities or
retrofitting other lease buildings would only benefit the landlords and
not the government. Staying in current leased facilities forces the
Library to continue to pay for space that is expensive and provides no
return on investment (similar to renting vs. buying a home). Finally,
we would lose the synergy of Fort Meade, which offers advantages and
the cost benefit of one security system, one transportation
destination, easy access between storage facilities, and other
administrative efficiencies, while providing increased capacity on
Capitol Hill, and more efficient use of space on and off Capitol Hill.
If this project is delayed, the Library will continue to incur very
expensive lease and repair costs associated with current storage
materials. Savings to the government of at least $3 million annually
will be lost to lease, operating and repair costs at existing
facilities. The master plan at Fort Meade is already six years behind
schedule. Further delays will raise the price tag of this project again
due to inflation and other factors and further delay, and also
increase, the price tag of other buildings planned for in the master
plan.
The remaining 10 Library projects are needed to maintain the
Library's buildings and grounds, to address immediate environmental,
fire and life safety issues, and to support space modifications in
response to the Library's ever changing program needs.
The AOC has also included their own fire and life safety projects.
Past deferments and delays have created a long list of urgently needed
projects. The cost of maintenance and upgrades will continue to rise
rapidly if the Library cannot stop, or at least slow down, the rate of
deterioration of its buildings and return to its approved construction
plan and schedule.
The following table lists the Library's projects in priority order:
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET--LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND
GROUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Library Priorities Fiscal Year 2007 2007 Requested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Meade Book Module 3 & 4............................ ..............
Copyright Deposit Re-Design............................. ..............
Fort Meade Logistics Warehouse.......................... $54,200,000
Culpeper O&M (Facility Support)......................... 2,500,000
Fort Meade O&M (Facility Support)....................... 640,000
Air Handling Unit Replacement JMMB...................... 2,890,000
Preservation Environmental Monitoring................... 80,000
Contract Asbestos Validation TJB........................ 100,000
LOC Space Modifications (Rooms and Partitions).......... 650,000
Minor Construction...................................... 990,000
Painting................................................ 100,000
Kitchen Equipment....................................... 40,000
Design--Court Yard Renovation, TJB...................... 75,000
---------------
Total............................................. 62,265,000
---------------
Operational Support..................................... 39,972,000
===============
Client Total...................................... 102,237,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide an update on the progress of the National
Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, VA. When will this
facility be complete?
Answer. The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) is in charge of the
NAVCC construction. PHI is working closely with the Architect of the
Capitol and has made and is financing enhancements and improvements in
the original plan. PHI's originally scheduled completion dates for the
NAVCC were spring 2005 for the Phase 1 Collections Building and Central
Plant and spring 2006 for the Phase 2 Conservation Building and Nitrate
Vaults. Since then, construction delays have forced PHI to revise
slightly its master schedule. Phase 1 was turned over to the Library in
December 2005, and the Library is now moving its collections into this
part of the complex. For Phase 2, PHI's new master schedule indicates a
completion and turnover date for the entire project of March 1, 2007.
Staff will be relocated in stages that are synchronized with the
PHI construction schedule. Six Library staff began working in the Phase
1 Collections Building in January 2006. The majority of NAVCC staff
will work in the Phase 2 Conservation Building and will be relocated in
alignment with the new construction schedule as follows:
--Summer 2006.--Relocation of two or three advance staff from the
Motion Picture Conservation Center (MPCC) in Dayton, Ohio to
help set up the NAVCC Film Laboratory.
--December 1, 2006.--Relocation of two advance technical staff from
MBRS in Washington to install cabling and initial AV system
components.
--March-May 2007.--Relocation of Capitol Hill staff and the remainder
of the Dayton staff to Culpeper. Approximately 12 MBRS staff
will remain in the Madison Building to provide public services
in the NAVCC reading room.
Question. Dr. Billington, the Library has requested funding in
fiscal year 2007--$150,000--for the Lincoln traveling exhibition.
Please describe how the Library is working with the federally
designated Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission on development and
implementation of the exhibition.
Answer. The Library of Congress has had periodic meetings with the
director and various members of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial
Commission for more than a year. At these meetings, we discuss the
progress of the exhibition, funding efforts, the other venues to which
the exhibition will travel, and the coordination of programming
developed by the Library as well as programming developed by the
Commission and its partners.
The Commission has been particularly helpful in identifying and
making initial contacts with many of the exhibition's potential venues.
Further, many of the Library of Congress Lincoln exhibition advisors
have been drawn from the Commission's Advisory Committee. We will
continue to share information and progress reports with the Commission
in planning the Library exhibition and its ancillary programs.
Question. Mr. Mulhollan, the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
recently eliminated 59 permanent job positions in 3 categories. This is
the first reduction-in-force (RIF) in CRS's history. Can you tell us
what steps you are taking to ensure a fair transition for these
employees?
Answer. CRS has taken a number of steps to assist the staff who
will be affected by CRS' decision to change the way work is performed.
These include:
--Staff received a full twelve months to seek and find alternative
employment. The decision was announced on September 22, 2005
and the positions will not be eliminated until September 30,
2006.
--CRS offered a voluntary early retirement option and requested of
the Congress and received authority to offer a separation
incentive payment of up to the legal maximum amount allowed of
$25,000 to staff separating through retirement with a full
annuity, early retirement, or resignation. Twenty-three of the
affected staff took advantage of one or both of these programs
and retired on or before January 3, 2006.
--Since the end of September, CRS alone and in collaboration with the
Library's Office of Human Resources Services, has been
providing a range of retirement and career counseling services,
including:
--Retirement counseling: special briefings on the details of
voluntary early retirement; the application and approval
process for separation incentives; a two-day retirement
seminar for staff and spouses; and individual retirement
counseling.
--Career services: workshops and individual career counseling
sessions; a workshop with representatives from D.C.,
Maryland, and Virginia career services centers; a
comprehensive three-day career-transition workshop;
notification of local recruiting events, and access to a
web page with career-related information and links to
numerous websites.
--Employment opportunities: training on how to apply for positions
using the Library's automated hiring system; notification
of all vacancy announcements within CRS; and notification
of potential vacancies of interest in the Library.
--Reduction-in-force (RIF) briefing: a special briefing with a RIF
expert on RIF general procedures.
--Further, the Library is seeking approval of new and permanent
authority that will grant any Library of Congress employee who
is the subject of a formal RIF with job placement rights with
agencies in the Executive Branch. Heretofore, Library of
Congress staff displaced through agency downsizing or
reengineering had no federal re-employment rights regardless of
their grade, job series, or federal tenure. This authority
would grant Library of Congress employees who receive a RIF
notice priority status for selection into competitive-service
positions in the executive branch. Such authority is currently
granted to executive branch employees who are RIFed from
executive branch positions. This authority would place Library
of Congress employees behind any affected employees in an
agency undergoing a RIF in selection priority but ahead of
applicants who have no federal service. Adopting this provision
would give the Library's employees a broader potential
employment base and help employees who wish to continue their
public-service careers beyond the Library of Congress.
Question. Where in your fiscal year 2007 budget have you accounted
for the possibility of paying severance pay to these employees?
Answer. First, we need to add that one additional individual within
the CRS affected staff has been offered a position outside of the
Library--bringing the number of remaining employees down to 30. The
Library is committed to funding any fiscal liability associated with
the separation of the remaining 30 affected CRS staff; however, the
question assumes that all severance pay will be borne by CRS which is
unlikely. Further, the specific treatment of severance pay in the
Library's budget is premature.
Projecting the amount of severance pay which will actually be paid
in fiscal year 2007 is a complicated process. It involves taking into
account several variable outcomes: forecasting the number of staff that
who accept Voluntary Early Retirement (VERA) and/or the Voluntary
Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP); the number of staff who are
successful in competing for vacant positions in CRS, the Library, other
federal agencies, or in the private sector; and ultimate placement of
affected staff into vacant positions in the Library or elsewhere in the
Federal government under a reduction-in-force action.
Of the 30 who remain on the CRS payroll at this time, one is
currently eligible for full retirement and eight others are or will be
eligible for early retirement on September 30. In accordance with the
Federal Code of Regulations, an employee separated by a reduction-in
force (RIF) action is ineligible for a severance entitlement if they
are eligible to receive an immediate annuity from a federal retirement
system. For these nine staff, CRS will be liable only for terminal
leave payments, estimated at about $49,000.
The Library's general policy is ``to retain and to assign to other
positions, insofar as may be possible . . . staff members whose
positions are abolished.'' This may occur by assigning staff to vacant
positions in other organizations within the Library, or by an employee
affected by a RIF exercising their ``bumping'' rights to claim a
position held by someone with less retention preference. It is
conceivable that ``bumping'' could eventually force an involuntary
separation of an employee in another Library Service Unit, in which
case, the severance payments would not be reflected in the CRS budget.
Further, given that the individual who is ultimately separated has the
least seniority, the Library's fiscal liability would be reduced
because the severance entitlement computation is based upon years of
service and age. Should an affected employee decline a reasonable offer
to be reassigned into another Library position, that employee forfeits
his/her claim to receive severance pay. The severance entitlement
terminates if/when an individual becomes employed under a qualifying
appointment with the federal government or the government of the
District of Columbia.
As stated by both the Librarian and the CRS Director, it is the
hope of the institution that all of the affected staff will find
alternative employment or be placed into vacant positions within the
Library. If a formal RIF becomes necessary and the processes governing
it are implemented, the Library of Congress has a good track record for
placing employees and is hopeful that this will again be the case.
As stated elsewhere in these responses, the Library is seeking two
new administrative provisions that would grant competitive status to
Library staff who have completed their probationary period and places
displaced Library staff on equal footing with Executive branch
employees by making these employees eligible for vacant Executive
Branch positions. These new provisions would expand options for Library
staff facing a RIF and offers all Library employees additional
opportunities for jobs and career growth in public service. As staff
are successfully placed within the Library or with other federal
agencies, the federal financial liability for severance pay decreases
accordingly and could be eliminated altogether.
Question. Have you provided any Members of Congress, Congressional
committees, or CRS staff copies of the studies or any other written
analysis which led you to decide that 59 permanent positions should be
eliminated by September 30, 2006? If not, members of this subcommittee
would like to see copies of these studies.
Answer. A CRS ``Director's Report'' issued on November 3, 2005
provides a detailed analysis of the decision to eliminate the
production support, technical support assistant, and audio-visual
staff. That report was provided to selected members of the metropolitan
area delegation, members of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific
Caucus. This report and extensive additional information also were
provided to the House Administration Committee and key staff on the
Library's oversight committees. The report was also made available to
all CRS staff members on the CRS staff web page. The Director's Report
of November 3, 2005 follows.
Director's Report--Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing Changes, November 3, 2005
summary
The Director of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is vested
by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 with responsibility to
assure the appropriate mix of employees and consultants to develop and
maintain the information and research capability that he deems
necessary to perform the statutory mission of the Service--to provide
to the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and
reliable legislative research, analysis, and information services that
are timely, objective, non-partisan, and confidential. The Director is
also authorized to ``establish and change, from time to time, as he
considers advisable, within the Congressional Research Service, such
research and reference divisions or other organizational units, or
both, as he considers necessary . . .'' From the statute, it is clear
that the Director is obligated to undertake such reorganizations and
staffing adjustments as he considers necessary to provide efficiently
and effectively the products and services upon which Members and
committees rely and have come to expect. The staffing adjustments
announced recently fall squarely within this obligation. The Congress
is facing many global and domestic financial challenges and has
explicitly stated that Legislative Branch agency heads are expected to
look within to find ways to streamline operations and pare all
unnecessary duplication and costs that are not critical to achieving
core business goals and objectives.
The following key points are discussed in the report.
The Decision
The Congressional Research Service will eliminate the production
support, technical support assistant, and audio visual positions on
September 30, 2006. This action affects 59 staff in a total workforce
of nearly 700. The decision is based on a series of management reviews
and evaluations of needed functions and activities which have been
overtaken by technological advances. CRS will redirect the resources,
currently committed to supporting these staff, to obtain new support
capacities critical to service to the Congress.
Of the 59 staff, 38 are production coordinators or assistants (of
which two are receptionists), 18 are technical support assistants, and
three are in audio-visual support. The average compensation, including
salary and benefits, for these staff is $75,101 per annum; the average
salary without benefits is $60,636. Over one-half of these staff, 33,
are either eligible for full voluntary retirement or voluntary early
retirement and the maximum $25,000 separation incentive. Sixteen are
not eligible to retire but are eligible for the maximum $25,000
separation incentive. The average separation incentive for these 16
staff is $16,906.
Currently 32.3 percent of CRS' total permanent workforce of 694
staff is minority. If all of the affected staff were to separate from
CRS and no other attrition or hires were to take place (total staff
reduced to 635), the total minority population would be 28.8 percent.
The proportion of Asian Americans would increase from 4.5 percent to
4.7 percent; Native Americans would increase from .7 percent to .8
percent; Hispanics would remain the same; and the proportion of African
Americans would decrease from 24.6 percent to 20.9 percent. It must be
noted that these projections of course do not reflect new hires or the
consequences of other attrition.
CRS is offering the 59 affected staff a variety of resources to
assist in their planning, including an early retirement option,
separation incentive of up to $25,000, retirement counseling, career
and job counseling, and retention in their current positions through
September, 2006.
CRS, as a result of management reviews and evaluations, has and
continues to create new positions to meet critical work needs of the
Service. Affected staff may apply for these positions through an open
and competitive process.
Background
In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations issued clear directives to all Legislative Branch
agencies to maintain rigorous and disciplined business practices in
agency operations, to contain costs, to establish strong agency-
performance goals, and to report to the Congress on all of these
activities. CRS based the fiscal year 2006 staffing decisions upon
analytic and objective evaluations of how best to align resources to
current, critical work needs.
The final fiscal year 2005 and 2006 appropriations for CRS require
the agency to downsize permanently by the equivalent of about 30 full
time equivalents (FTEs), thereby reducing total FTEs from 729 to 700.
Given the confluence of several factors, including a higher average
grade level (higher level of expertise) and the continuing trend of
increased costs for staff benefits (Federal Employee Retirement System
benefits average 28 percent per employee versus an average of 13
percent per employee under Civil Service Retirement System), CRS
requested in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 additional funds, $2.7 million
and $3.6 million respectively, to compensate for funding shortfalls in
its budget base. Congress did not fund the request in fiscal year 2005
and provided $500,000 toward this shortfall in 2006. CRS must be
vigilant to maintain the necessary analytic strength to support the
Congress, and it must maintain an infrastructure that meets and keeps
pace with the Congress' evolving needs. The fiscal year 2006 staffing
decisions are part of the Service's overall strategy to accommodate a
downsized CRS within the framework of a fiscally constrained budget.
CRS has taken action and implemented adjustments over the last five
years to ensure that its resources are properly aligned with
congressional needs. These adjustments resulted in the elimination and
restructuring of organizational units; the elimination, downgrading,
and creation of positions; and the use of contractors to undertake
specific work needs. CRS based each adjustment upon formal assessments
of the impact of new technologies on the work; the existing content,
structure and processes of the work performed; the skills and abilities
needed to undertake the work; and in some cases, consideration to
outsource the work based upon a cost and feasibility analysis. Examples
of recent assessments follow:
--1. The role of information professionals/librarians within CRS. The
result of this study led to the elimination of a CRS office and
a division (Office of Information Resources Management and
Information Research Division) and the creation of one smaller,
integrated division, the Knowledge Services Group. The work of
librarians, as well as all paralegal, technical information,
and most library technician staff, throughout the Service was
redefined and adjusted. Positions were created to undertake new
functions, revisions were made to other positions to align the
work directly to the new organization, some positions were
eliminated, and some activities were contracted out. During the
assessment, no new permanent hires were made into positions
under review. Today, the new, more efficient, organization
consists of 54 fewer staff performing the work--a staff
reduction from 190 to 136.
--2. Examination of support positions within three infrastructure
offices. Three separate studies evaluated the functions
supporting CRS formal programs and seminars in the Legislative
Relations Office and of administrative functions within the
Offices of Finance and Administration and Workforce
Development. These studies resulted in CRS creating and
competitively filling new positions at lower grade levels. For
example, program aide positions were redesignated at a GS-11
level rather than GS-13. Administrative support grade levels
within the Offices were reduced, on average, from GS-11 to GS-
7.
--3. Integration of CRS' economists and scientists with other policy
research disciplines. This study led to the elimination of two
research divisions (Economics and Science Policy), the
integration of the economists and scientists into the other
policy divisions, the elimination of seven senior level
research coordination positions, and the return of five senior
level specialists to full time research.
--4. Outsourcing of selected support functions. Other functional
assessments resulted in expanded outsourcing of CRS support
activities, including mail and courier service, technical
troubleshooting (help desk and user support), receptionist
duties, and copy center operations.
introduction
The Director of the Congressional Research Service is vested by the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 with responsibility to assure
the appropriate mix of employees and consultants to develop and
maintain the information and research capability that he deems
necessary to perform the statutory mission of the Service--to provide
to the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and
reliable legislative research, analysis, and information services that
are timely, objective, non-partisan, and confidential. The Director is
also authorized to ``establish and change, from time to time, as he
considers advisable, within the Congressional Research Service, such
research and reference divisions or other organizational units, or
both, as he considers necessary . . .'' \1\ From the statute, it is
clear that the Director is obligated to undertake such reorganizations
and staffing adjustments as he considers necessary to provide
efficiently and effectively the products and services upon which
Members and committees rely and have come to expect. The staffing
adjustments announced recently fall squarely within this obligation.
The Congress is facing many global and domestic financial challenges
and has explicitly stated that Legislative Branch agency heads are
expected to look within to find ways to streamline operations and pare
all unnecessary duplication and costs that are not critical to
achieving core business goals and objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2 U.S.C. 166 (d, f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
current conditions relevant to staffing decision
Congressional Directives and the CRS Budget
In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations issued clear directives to all Legislative Branch
agencies to maintain rigorous and disciplined business practices in
agency operations, cost containment, and achievement of agency-
performance objectives. The use of sound business practices has been,
and will continue to be, the way CRS is managed. The fiscal year 2006
enacted budget places financial constraints on CRS operations and
reinforces Congress' expectation that CRS contain costs while
sustaining a highly productive, high performing agency. Appendix A
provides excerpts from the committee reports.
Eighty-eight percent of the CRS budget, now just over $100 million,
is earmarked for the ``salary and benefits'' costs of its workforce.
Over the past ten years, the Service's annual adjustments provided
through the budget process have not kept pace with the rapidly
increasing costs of sustaining CRS' workforce, due to several factors:
--a gradual and necessary shift to more highly skilled expertise in
the CRS workforce composition to support the Congress in
increasingly complex policy areas (e.g., combating terrorism,
assimilating information technologies in industry, commerce and
governments, and the implications of an aging population). In
the period from fiscal year 1995 to the present, the average
grade level of a CRS hire has increased from GS-7, Step 9 to
GS-13, Step 9;
--a shift in the proportion of the workforce participating in the
Federal Employee Retirement System, for which the average
employer-paid benefits rate of 28 percent is twice that of a
Civil Service Retirement System employee making the same salary
(with an average employer-paid benefits rate of 13 percent);
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Federal Employees Retirement System Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-335) requires all federal employees initially hired into permanent
positions after 1983 to be covered by the Federal Employees Retirement
System (FERS). Federal employees hired before 1984 are covered by the
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) unless they elected to switch to
FERS during ``open seasons'' held in 1987 and 1998. For CSRS
participants, the total employer-paid benefits per employee averages
about 13 percent of the base pay. For staff participating in FERS, the
employer-paid benefits cost averages about 28 percent of the base pay--
due in large part to the Thrift Savings Plan matching component of
FERS--making FERS significantly more expensive to the employing agency.
As the older CSRS staff retire and the proportion of the workforce
covered by FERS increases, the agency overhead costs related to staff
benefits increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--the adverse impact of annual rescissions in which losses are not
recovered in subsequent years; and
--the fact that the President has implemented actual pay raises that
are higher than those provided in the Legislative Branch bills
in nine of the last ten years.
While each of these factors would produce a marginal impact in the
course of a single year, the cumulative and combined impact of all of
them has generated a funding gap of nearly $4 million over the course
of ten years.
In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CRS requested a one-time budget base
adjustment ($2.7 to $3.6 million respectively) ``catch-up,'' that would
have provided the funding needed to recover lost cost increases
(purchasing power) and to rebuild the CRS workforce to the 729 full
time equivalent (FTE) ceiling authorized by the Congress. In both years
CRS informed the Congress that without the additional funding, the
Service's workforce would necessarily be drawn down to a level of about
700 FTEs, causing a serious impact on its ability to sustain the
research capacity required to fulfill its mission and meet the needs of
the Congress.\3\ The Congress did not support the request in fiscal
year 2005, and in fiscal year 2006 authorized $500,000 towards this
shortfall. CRS can no longer sustain a capacity of 729 full-time
equivalent employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Testimony of Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional
Research Service, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations,
Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2005, hearing, 108th Cong., 2d
sess., (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 274; and testimony of Daniel P.
Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Congress,
House, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations
for 2006, hearing, 109th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 2005), p.
593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS Management Initiatives
Well before the issuance of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 report
language from the House and Senate (see Appendix A), and with the goal
of maintaining a cost-effective organization, CRS had been undertaking
systematic assessments to identify current and future resource needs
and to identify functions that should be eliminated or re-engineered
due to technological advancements, internal work processes and
congressional needs. Listed below are some of the more significant
management initiatives CRS has instituted and the results of these
initiatives. CRS has:
--Developed and implemented an annual staffing assessment to
determine four key factors: (1) anticipated and known
attrition, (2) anticipated legislative issues, (3) likely gaps
in the Service's capacity to meet the needs of Congress, and
(4) current and future staffing needs. This assessment forms
the basis for the Service's annual hiring plan and is a
critical activity since staff salaries and benefits comprise 88
percent of the CRS budget.
--Implemented an annual ``zero scrub'' of the 12 percent of the CRS
budget devoted to nonpersonnel costs to validate each planned
expenditure and to identify expenditures that should either be
considered for reduction or elimination, or adjusted upwards to
meet agency needs;
--Created a new performance assessment system for senior-level
managers; and
--Instituted annual program and activity reviews to assess the
efficiencies and effectiveness of current operations, as well
as identify potential need to re-engineer or realign resources.
Resulting actions--organizational and staff realignments:
--The role of information professionals/librarians within CRS. The
result of a two year study led to the elimination of a CRS
office and a division (Office of Information Resources
Management and Information Research Division) and the creation
of one smaller, integrated division, the Knowledge Services
Group. The work of librarians, as well as all paralegal,
technical information, and most library technician staff,
throughout the Service was redefined and adjusted. Positions
were created to undertake new functions, revisions were made to
other positions to align the work directly to the new
organization; some positions were eliminated; and some
activities were contracted out. During the assessment no new
permanent hires were made into positions under review. Today,
the new, more efficient, organization contains 54 fewer staff
to perform the work, a reduction from 190 to 136 staff members.
--Examination of support positions within three infrastructure
offices. Three separate studies evaluated the functions
supporting formal CRS programs and seminars in the Legislative
Relations Office and of administrative functions within the
Offices of Finance and Administration and Workforce
Development. The result of these studies led CRS to create and
competitively fill new positions at lower grade levels. For
example, program aide positions were redesignated at a GS-11
level rather than GS-13. Administrative support grade levels
within the Offices were reduced on average from GS-11 to GS-7.
--Integration of CRS' economists and scientists with other policy
research disciplines. This study led to the elimination of two
research divisions (Economics and Science Policy), the
integration of the economists and scientists into the other
policy divisions, the elimination of seven senior level
research coordination positions, and the return of five senior
level specialists to full time research.
Resulting actions--activities and services eliminated:
--Eliminated two product lines--Info Packs and Electronic Briefing
Books;
--Closed two research centers--located in the Longworth and Ford
House office buildings;
--Eliminated indexing of committee prints;
--Shifted CRS product distribution from a primarily paper-based
inventory to primarily web-based, on-demand printing;
--Eliminated the public policy literature file and service;
--Closed one copy center; and
--Eliminated and consolidated division libraries.
Resulting actions--activities and services outsourced:
--Mail and messenger services;
--Copy center operations;
--Receptionist functions;
--Selected technology support; and
--Selected library technical support.
The most recently completed 2005 program and activity reviews
include an assessment of the functions currently performed by CRS
production support staff, technical support assistants, and audio-
visual staff. These assessments formed the basis for the actions
underway in these support activities. Studies to assess other
activities and functions are in progress.
production support, technical support assistant, and audio-visual
functions
Studies and Findings
Data for these 2005 studies came from a variety of sources,
including multiple discussions with potentially affected staff; a
thorough review of all relevant position functions; initial and
subsequent meetings with each assistant director and deputy assistant
director, some associate directors, and a sample of analysts,
attorneys, editors, and section heads. Information was collected using
structured questions and analyses of documents provided by CRS
staff.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In 2000, a preliminary review of the functions carried out by
the CRS production staff suggested that technological advances in word
processing were beginning to have implications for the ability to
sustain staff resources devoted to supporting word processing
activities. While determining the long-term consequences of these
advances on CRS staffing levels, the Service did not fill any
production coordinator or assistant positions thus, in effect,
implementing a freeze on these positions until further study could be
undertaken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aware of the changing functions needed to support its analytic
work, CRS last filled a primary production support position in 1997; a
technical support assistant position in 1999; and an audio-visual
position in 1991. The studies undertaken in 2005 confirmed that the
functions identified and performed by staff in these positions, while
appropriate and warranted ten years ago when first created, have been
overtaken by advances in technology and desktop computing.
The in-depth reviews of the production-support and technical-
support assistant functions confirmed that advances in technology have
changed both the expectations staff have with regard to the capacity
and power of their desktop computing capabilities and ease of using
these technologies in their day-to-day work. Ten years ago, when CRS
created the technical support assistant positions, the software and
operating systems used by the Service required a hands-on presence by
supporting staff, leading to the necessity of investing in a
significant number of technical support positions. For example, in the
past operating systems and software applications were manually
installed machine by machine. Today's computing environment is
supported centrally via ``push'' technology that enables sophisticated
software packages and upgrades to be loaded on more than 700 computers
from a single, central location within a few minutes. Such technology
also allows for a computer specialist to gain remote access to or
``proxy into'' a computer in order to evaluate and troubleshoot
technical problems directly with the user.
In addition, more than one-third of CRS' current analytic staff has
been hired in the last five to six years. They are more technologically
adroit, routinely producing final products at their desktops. And as a
result, the majority of CRS analysts no longer rely on the production
staff to help with product creation. Further, CRS is moving away from
providing the Congress with paper copies of reports to a primarily web-
based delivery system, with products prepared in both PDF and HTML.
Software and other technology advances have simplified product delivery
and incorporated most of the formatting directly in the software on the
author's desk. The CRS Electronic Research Products Office is
responsible for preparing CRS written products for final congressional
publication and dissemination, hence this function is not undertaken by
the individual analyst or production support coordinator or assistant.
Direct congressional demand for audio-visual products has been
declining for more than ten years. And the need by CRS analysts for
audio-visual support is uneven calling into question the need to retain
a separate, in-house staff for this purpose.
Since the functions needed to support effectively and efficiently
the administrative, product-preparation, and technology assistance
activities are significantly different from what is currently being
performed, the Director decided to eliminate the current positions and
redirect these resources to fulfilling newly identified support needs.
In order to accommodate remaining audio-visual needs the Service is
exploring outsourcing options. Appendix B provides additional
information on the studies.
affected staff
Positions Affected
Production support and receptionist duties \5\: The 38 individuals
affected by this decision are in positions at grade levels GS-4 to GS-
11. With the exception of two receptionists, the principal functions of
the current production staff include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Receptionist functions have been outsourced, and as a result
the two remaining receptionists in the Service are included as part of
these staffing changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--supporting research analysts throughout the entire product
preparation process to include the creation, formatting,
styling, editing and appearance of written documents, and in
the development of graphics and tables when needed;
--creating macros, templates and other guides to use in supporting
research analysts as they prepare their written products;
--meeting the needs of division authors with respect to design,
format and presentation of written products;
--working with division management to ensure uniformity of style and
format for division research products consistent with Service-
wide standards; and
--delivering final products to the CRS Review Office and the
Electronic Research Products Office.
Technical Support: The 18 individuals affected by this decision are
in positions at the GS-12 grade level. The principal functions of the
current positions include:
--analyzing operations with requirements that can be met through
limited customization of existing hardware components and/or
software packages;
--installing standard and specialized software on individual
computers within a division or office;
--keeping systems fully operational, integrated with other CRS
systems, and current with new developments in technology; and
--serving as trouble shooter for various computer problems
encountered by division/office staff.
Audio-visual support: The three individuals affected by this
decision in the audio-visual specialist/officer position are at the GS-
12 and GS-13 grade levels. Highlights of their current functions
include taping and editing scheduled programs and creating videos of a
small number of CRS experts who have prepared educational presentations
such as Supreme Court nominations and congressional procedures.
Salaries and Compensation
The total projected fiscal year 2006 cost for the 59 staff who are
affected by this decision is $4,430,962. Salaries and benefits for
individual staff range from $35,141 to a high of $115,678--the average
being $75,101. Further analysis of the data indicates that the salaries
(excluding benefits) for the affected staff range from $26,989 to
$99,223, with an average salary of $60,636. The median salary of these
staff is $52,082; eight staff earn less than $50,000 per year. Appendix
C includes a more detailed display of the salaries and benefits for the
affected staff.
Retirement Eligibility
CRS is offering a voluntary early retirement option and separation
incentive payment \6\ to the affected staff. CRS sought these options
based on the following information about the 59 affected staff:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CRS has the authority to grant the separation incentive payment
to a maximum of 50 staff. Up to 10 of these payments may be granted to
staff outside of these affected positions--the staff of the Knowledge
Services Group. There is no limit, however, on the number of affected
staff who can take advantage of the voluntary early retirement option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--33 of the affected staff are either eligible for full voluntary
retirement or voluntary early retirement and are eligible to
receive the maximum $25,000 separation incentive (16 for full
retirement and 17 for early retirement);
--16 are not eligible to retire but are eligible for the maximum
$25,000 separation incentive;
--Nine who are not eligible to retire, are eligible for separation
incentive payments ranging between $3,434 to $21,943, at an
average of $16,906; and
--One staff member, a receptionist, is not eligible for a separation
incentive because he has not fulfilled the requirement of three
years' employment with the government.
Appendix C also includes data on the retirement eligibility of
affected staff.
Diversity
A consequence of the 2006 staffing decisions is its potential
impact on the Service's workforce diversity profile. Table 1 below
demonstrates that if all of the affected staff were to separate from
the CRS workforce (data as of September 15, 2005), with no other
attrition or hires, the minority population of the CRS workforce would
represent 28.8 percent rather than 32.3 percent of total staff. This
computation, while accurate, may overstate the implication of the
reduction on minority staff. There is no way to predict the impact
other attrition might have on the Service's workforce composition or
the impact of planned 2006 hires. Further, given that 16 of these staff
are currently eligible for full voluntary retirement, it is possible
that many of these staff would have retired during this period,
regardless of the re-engineering efforts underway.
If no other element of our current profile changed, the elimination
of these positions would result in an increase in the proportion of
Asian Americans in the total workforce from 4.5 percent to 4.7 percent;
the proportion of Native Americans would increase from .7 percent to .8
percent; Hispanics would remain the same, at 2.4 percent; while the
proportion of African Americans would decrease from 24.6 percent to
20.9 percent.
TABLE 1.--DIVERSITY COMPOSITION OF THE CRS STAFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total CRS Perm/Ind Projected CRS Perm/Ind
Workforce Composition as Workforce Composition as
of 9/15/05 of 10/1/06
---------------------------------------------------
Number Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female...................................................... 357 51.4 317 49.9
Male........................................................ 337 48.6 318 50.1
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 694 100.0 635 100.0
===================================================
Minority composition........................................ 224 32.3 183 28.8
Nat Am/Alaskan.......................................... 5 0.7 5 0.8
Asian American.......................................... 31 4.5 30 4.7
African American........................................ 171 24.6 133 20.9
Hispanic................................................ 17 2.4 15 2.4
Non-Minority................................................ 470 67.7 452 71.2
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 694 100.0 635 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix D provides the diversity composition of the affected
staff.
Services to Affected Staff
CRS is offering a variety of resources to staff to assist them in
their decision making and transition. CRS requested of the Congress and
received authority to offer a separation incentive payment of up to
$25,000 to staff separating through retirement with a full annuity,
early retirement, or resignation. CRS is granting staff one full year
to find alternative employment and offering numerous specialized and
individual services to help them achieve that objective, including job
and retirement counseling. Appendix E provides a detailed list of the
services and resources being offered to the 59 affected staff.
It is CRS' hope that these measures will eliminate the need to
undertake a reduction-in-force (RIF) in September of 2006. However,
after September 2006, staff who remain in the positions targeted for
elimination will be subject to RIF procedures.
new positions
CRS is redirecting its resources to acquire new and different
support capacities generated by technological changes and new work
processes. CRS will be competitively filling these new support
positions in the near future. There will be fewer positions and some
will be classified and filled at lower grade levels.
The new positions are summarized below. A description of existing
positions is included to provide a context for the new capacities. The
language used to describe the duties of these positions is primarily
derived from the relevant, official position descriptions.
Administrative Support Positions
GS-8 Senior Production Assistant (current)
Performs duties related to the preparation of various written
products that CRS produces for the Congress to include Reports, Issue
Briefs and memoranda. Supports research analysts throughout the entire
production process to include the creation, formatting, styling,
editing and appearance of written documents and in the development of
graphics and tables when needed. Is responsible for product delivery
and for working with the Electronic Research Products Office (ERPO) to
finalize products, making changes as needed following the review of the
ERPO editors or the CRS Review Office. May use computer on-line systems
to retrieve information in support of the researcher's written
products.
GS-7 Administrative Support Assistant (new)
Performs support functions related to the administrative operations
of the division. Implements and maintains division-wide administrative
control systems to include confidential division files, correspondence
tracking and the disposition of records. Ensures that division staff at
all levels are fully informed on CRS and Library administrative
practices, procedures and other administrative requirements. Initiates
the development of new and revised administrative policies and
procedures for the division as appropriate. Works with the supervisor
to ensure that division managers and staff requests for training and
travel are processed in an accurate and timely manner and tracks the
progress of these requests through to approval. Uses appropriate
software applications to generate administrative documents and forms.
Serves as the central point of contact for all division staff regarding
questions and issues related to the web- based time and attendance
system.
GS-11 Senior Production/Administrative Coordinator
(current)
Oversees the function that supports the preparation of CRS written
products including managing the production work-flow, clearing products
for style, format, and editorial accuracy, maintaining records of the
location of research products, transmitting written products to the CRS
Review Office and the Electronic Research Products Office and other
duties related to the support of the research production/preparation
function in the division. Provides training and trouble-shooting
service for the senior production assistants and other support staff in
the division. Helps to create macros, templates and other guides for
the support staff to use in supporting research analysts as they
prepare their written products. Advises the support staff on how to
meet the needs of division authors with respect to design, format and
presentation of written products. Works with division management to
ensure uniformity of style and format for division research products
consistent with Service-wide standards.
GS-11 Supervisory Administrative Coordinator (new)
Advises the head of the division (the assistant director) on the
administrative needs and requirements of the division, serves as the
principal point of contact for the division, and supervises the work of
administrative and clerical division staff. Coordinates with senior CRS
and Library managers and with subordinate offices to communicate and
interpret administrative/management assignments, recommend appropriate
action or suggest alternative approaches, and follow up as appropriate
to ensure proper and timely response to assignments. Manages the
division's official correspondence and a wide variety of correspondence
from within and outside the agency. Manages the assistant director's
calendar and initiates contacts and oversees logistical planning and
preparation for the assistant director's meetings. Undertakes special
administrative projects or management studies either individually or as
a participant on task forces or working groups. Monitors and evaluates
the activities of contractors assigned to perform clerical activities
for the division.
Technical Support Positions
GS-12 Senior Technical Support Assistant (current)
Provides de-centralized technical support to divisions and offices.
Independently analyzes operations with requirements that can be met
through limited customization of existing hardware components and
software packages. Installs standard and specialized software.
Independently designs, develops, documents, and manages systems that
require important but limited customization. Keeps such systems fully
operational, integrated with other CRS systems, and current with new
developments in technology. Creates documentation for end users of
systems; typically the entire staff of a division or office. Serves as
trouble shooter for various computer problems encountered by division/
office staff. Prepares documentation and establishes procedures to
assist other technical support assistants to diagnose and solve trouble
calls in a number of technical areas supported by the CRS Technology
Office. Develops and delivers training courses for groups of 10-12.
GS-11 Technical Writer-Editor (new)
Plans, writes, and edits a variety of technical documents,
including guidelines, reference materials, fact sheets, website
entries, and standard operating procedures; ensures accuracy,
consistency, format, completeness, spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, and syntax. Produces technical material for a variety
of offices, and determines the adequacy of materials prepared by
others. Utilizes substantial subject matter knowledge to interpret
technical material for a variety of audiences.
GS-14 Information Technology Specialist--INFOSEC (new)
Serves as a technical authority and assists in planning, directing,
and coordinating the implementation and execution of approved security
policies, programs, and services related to Information Technology (IT)
systems. Oversees or coordinates the preparation of security testing
and implementation plans. Plans and investigates mission-critical
cybersecurity violations that affect the integrity of an agency-wide IT
infrastructure, and develops long-range plans for IT security systems.
Leads the implementation of security programs for the Service designed
to anticipate, assess, and minimize system vulnerabilities. Conducts
difficult and sensitive computer forensic investigations, and ensures
the integration of IT programs and services.
GS-7 Office Equipment Administrator (new)
Monitors the CRS copy centers, determining whether print jobs
require assistance to be completed; tracks work produced for accuracy,
quality, and production timeliness; and analyzes system down-time.
Monitors CRS copiers and other office equipment, and identifies obvious
trends, or deviations that could impact services provided. Provides
support and assists in the planning, review, and reporting of data/
statistical results of programs and project studies, and compiles
statistical data to assist with the overall evaluation and selection of
equipment.
Status of New Positions
CRS posted the vacancy announcements for the supervisory
administrative coordinator positions on October 18, 2005 and the
administrative support assistant positions on October 24, 2005. CRS
anticipates that vacancy announcements for the other three technical
positions will open by the end of November.
CRS is also creating quality assurance editor and publication-
support positions to assist with the dissemination of CRS products to
the Congress. Work on these positions are underway. Vacancy
announcements for these positions may be open by late-November.
Affected staff may apply for these new positions under the Library
of Congress merit selection process.
fiscal year 2006 hires
In addition to filling positions in the new support areas described
above, CRS will continue hiring staff to sustain analytic capacity and
prepare for the succession of senior leadership. While the total CRS
workforce is smaller today than in 1999, the proportion of analytic
staff compared to the total workforce has increased. As of September
15, 2005, CRS analytic capacity represents 333 permanent, full time
staff members (47.9 percent) of a total staff of 694 compared to 287
permanent, full-time staff members (40.8 percent) of a total staff of
703 in fiscal year 1999. The 2006 staffing decisions were made in the
context of honoring the congressionally supported succession plan of
the late 1990s and maintaining a Service-wide infrastructure in a
manner that adequately addresses analytic capacity and research needs.
In fiscal year 2006, unless faced with an across-the-board
rescission, the Service anticipates hiring four attorneys in American
Law; eight analysts in Domestic Social Policy; six analysts in Foreign
Affairs, Defense and Trade; four analysts in Government and Finance;
and six analysts in Resources, Science and Industry. Consistent with
succession planning, CRS will be filling positions for a deputy
associate director for finance and a deputy associate director for
congressional affairs. The Service will continue to review the current
section head duties as part of CRS' ongoing succession planning.
conclusion
CRS is making every effort to manage its resources so as to perform
efficiently and effectively its statutory mission of service to the
Congress, while at the same time coping with the constrained
Legislative Branch budget that has prevailed in recent years. The
Service has been directed by the Congress to find ways to streamline
its operations, eliminate unnecessary duplication, explore options for
outsourcing appropriate functions, and to align resources in a cost-
effective manner while achieving performance goals that meet
congressional needs.
The decisions outlined in this report were made with full
recognition of and appreciation for the contributions made by affected
CRS staff, and with much attention focused on finding ways to mitigate
the impact on those employees. As described, CRS is providing time for
the affected staff to make personal decisions by delaying
implementation for a full year. CRS also has obtained from the Congress
authority to offer separation incentive payments and approval from the
Office of Personnel Management to offer a voluntary early retirement
option. The Service also is applying resources through September 2006
to assist staff during the phase out of their positions by offering
them services which include: career counseling, job search assistance,
and retirement counseling.
In summary, obligations for good stewardship have led the Service
to make some very difficult decisions. CRS has done so in keeping with
recent congressional directives and budget decisions and only after a
thorough examination of all available options and proper attention to
the implications for staff.
Appendix A: Excerpts From the Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 Reports of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2005
From U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative
Branch Appropriations, 2005, report to accompany H.R. 4755, 108th
Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 108-577 (Washington: GPO, 2005). Excerpts:
Legislative Branch Wide Matters
Budget requests.--The Committee wants to underscore the fact that
with record deficits, a war on terrorism, and troops on the ground in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget requests from the agencies of the
Legislative Branch cannot continue to be presented with requested
increases as high as 50 percent. The Committee expects that future
budget submissions will take into consideration the overall budget
constraints placed on the entire Federal budget and that more
reasonable budget requests will be forthcoming in future years. (p. 4)
Potential for savings.--. . . The Committee directs the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to work closely with the head of each
Legislative Branch entity to: (1) identify opportunities that will
streamline the agency organization and eliminate organizational layers;
(2) outsource operations that will result in providing higher quality
and less costly services; (3) utilize existing technology to enhance
operational efficiency; (4) implement management changes, which will
increase efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations; and (5)
where applicable apply the ``Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act'',
and ``Chief Financial Officers Act'', and the ``Government Performance
and Results Act''. The committee directs that the GAO report its
findings, including recommendations for changes, to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House and Senate by January 10, 2005. Each agency
of the Legislative Branch should be prepared to discuss recommended
changes during the fiscal year 2006 appropriation hearing cycle. (pp.
4-5)
Outsourcing.--. . . the Committee directs that each agency of the
Legislative Branch examine potential outsourcing opportunities of the
following areas: Information management operations and site management;
building facilities and grounds management and operations; human
resources management and operations; training functions; vehicle
maintenance and management; physical security; financial operations;
and printing operations. Each agency is expected to not only examine
the areas outlined, but also examine other activities and functions
that are unique to each agency to determine if further outsourcing
opportunities exist. (p. 5)
Congressional Research Service
The Committee is concerned with the potential for duplication of
support activities between the Congressional Research Service Unit and
the Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses account. The Committee
funds centralized support organizations such as Information Technology
Services, Human Resources Services, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, and Integrated Support Services to provide Library-wide
support services, which helps to reduce duplicate systems and processes
throughout the Library accounts. Of particular note, in this year's
budget request, the Library is requesting in two separate accounts
funding for the Alternate Computer Facility and XML capabilities which
may reflect duplication of support services. The Committee directs that
the Library of Congress conduct a study of such functions as
information technology, human resources, financial services, space
management, and other support functions to determine whether any
duplicate or overlapping activities exist. The findings of the study
are to be provided to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and
Senate prior to the fiscal year 2006 budget submission and any
budgetary reductions or realignments be so reflected in the fiscal year
2006 request. (p. 24)
From Statement of Managers accompanying the conference report to
H.R. 4755, H. Rept. 108-792, see Congressional Record (daily edition),
November 19, 2004, p. H10770.
The conferees emphasize to the Legislative Branch agencies that the
large budgetary increases requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget
submissions cannot be sustained. The conferees encourage the agencies
to submit more reasonable budget requests for fiscal year 2006, and
thereafter.
Fiscal Year 2006
From U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Legislative
Branch Appropriations, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th
Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 109-139 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
Legislative Branch Wide Matters
Mandatory and Price Level Increases.--After reviewing budget
presentation materials submitted by Legislative Branch entities, it is
apparent to the Committee that there is a wide variance in how the
agencies formulate and present budget estimates, especially estimates
for mandatory, or uncontrollable budget increases. To facilitate the
Committee's review and analysis of budget requests, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to review and evaluate the
basis of each Legislative Branch agency's budget estimates with the
exception of those of the House and the Senate. This review should
place particular emphasis on evaluating the basis of each agency's
estimates of uncontrollable costs, including what the agency presents
as ``mandatory'' and ``price level expenses''. GAO shall recommend to
the Committee budget formulation policy changes that address the
composition of estimates as well as presentation format. Also, GAO is
directed to examine each agency's treatment of Full-Time Equivalents
(FTE's) in its budget submission and recommend consistent guidelines
each agency can follow in formulating, presenting, and justifying its
FTE requirements. GAO should also evaluate each agency's treatment of
non-recurring requirements. This evaluation should be of requirements
below the program level not simply a list of non-recurring programs.
GAO shall recommend to the Committee a consistent analytical approach,
which can be used by each agency to identify non-recurring requirements
of individual programs and reflect those changes in budget presentation
materials. GAO shall report to the Committee on Appropriations of the
House and Senate the results of its efforts by October 1, 2005 to
provide sufficient time for the Committee to review and analyze so that
Legislative Branch agencies incorporate the appropriate changes in the
formulation of their fiscal year 2007 budget requests. (pp. 4-5)
Legislative Branch Agency Reforms.--The Congress and the nation are
faced with increased demands for Federal funds for every increasing
domestic and international program. The Committee is impressed with the
management and operational reforms implemented in several Legislative
Branch agencies over the past few years, including the Government
Printing Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Chief
Administrative Office of the House of Representatives. The Committee
believes that other legislative agencies can benefit by the examples
set by these agencies. Further opportunities exist for increases in
efficiency resulting from new technology, performance based management,
and other management improvements. The Committee understands that
organizational reform is difficult, however, the task can be achieved
if strong and dynamic leadership is attained. The Committee extends the
following advice gleaned from these successful agencies. It is critical
that agency heads look to the future in planning these endeavors and
that mid-managers and employees are participants as well as
stakeholders in the process. The leaders and employees are guided in
developing and embracing their own logical and clear strategic vision
for the organization's future. Agency management needs to identify
leaders at all levels that will embrace change, and never lose sight of
the most important asset of any organization, the staff and workforce.
The Committee expects that all agencies will continue to look within
for ways to complete their missions by using the guidance and
experiences of their successful sister agencies as models to reduce the
demand for additional staff and larger budget increases in the coming
fiscal years. (p. 5)
Review statutes of legislative branch agency heads.--There
currently exist various laws, processes, and practices governing the
selection, appointment, removal, compensation, and term of service of
the Heads and the Deputies of various agencies in the Legislative
Branch, including the Office of Compliance, the Congressional Budget
Office, and the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress, the
Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. The
Committee suggests that the Joint Leadership of Congress, in order to
establish uniformity, should review, evaluate and consider the
appropriate changes to current legislation and regulations governing
these positions. (p. 6)
From U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Legislative
Branch Appropriations, 2006, report to accompany H.R. 2985, 109th
Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 109-89 (Washington: GPO, 2005).
Government Performance and Results Act
The Committee supports the applicability of many Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) principles to the Legislative
Branch. GPRA encourages greater efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability in Federal spending, and requires agencies to set goals
and use performance measures for management and budgeting. While most
Legislative Branch agencies have developed strategic plans, several
agencies have not effectively dealt with major management problems and
lack reliable data to verify and validate performance. While
Legislative Branch agencies are not required to comply with GPRA, the
Committee believes the spirit and intent of the Results Act should be
applied to these agencies. The Committee intends to monitor agencies'
progress in developing and implementing meaningful performance
measures, describing how such measures will be verified and validated,
linking performance measures to day-to-day activities, and coordinating
across ``sister'' agencies. The Committee directs all legislative
branch agencies to submit their plans for achieving this goal within 90
days of enactment of this Act. (pp. 3-4)
Library of Congress
The Committee recognizes the high priority of the Library's
research mission in support of the Congress, which is reflected in the
amount recommended for the Congressional Research Service. (p. 35)
The Committee is concerned about the lack of transparency in the
Library of Congress budget presentation. It is not always clear and
understandable. The budget presentation materials do not present
meaningful programmatic information from a zero-based perspective that
allow the Committee to determine how priorities are established and
where tradeoffs could be made. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Library of Congress to develop a budget presentation and justification
package for the fiscal year 2007 budget cycle that clearly addresses
rates and assumptions used in the base as well as a clear description
for each program of what drives demand for the program, what the nature
of the program's workload is, and what service or outcome each base
program is intended to produce. A clear description of new program
starts and a detailed break out of rates and assumptions associated
with cost estimates for those programs including demand, workload, and
outcome should also be provided along with a clear explanation of how
each program relates to goals and objectives set forth in the Library's
strategic plan. The Committee expects the Library will consult with the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the development of this new
presentation package. (p. 35)
Appendix B: Findings From the Production Support, Technical Support
Assistant, and Audio-Visual Functions
Summary of the Program Activity reviews
Methodology
In 2005 CRS undertook assessments of its production, technical
support, and audio-visual needs, as well as the functions currently
provided within the Service in those areas. Data for these studies came
from a variety of sources, including multiple discussions with
potentially affected staff; a thorough review of all relevant position
functions; initial and subsequent meetings with each assistant director
and deputy assistant director, some associate directors, and a sample
of analysts, attorneys, editors, and section heads; and the use of
structured questions.
Production and Administrative Support Functional Review:
Findings Summary from the January 2005 Study
The study of production and administrative support functions found
that the technical needs of research and analytic staff have changed.
The study found that the technical skills of newly hired analysts and
attorneys often exceed those that the production staff regularly
demonstrate. Concurrently, there is a need for increasingly advanced
and specialized technical skills to do the more sophisticated product-
preparation work now required.
Production staff indicated that they primarily perform
administrative functions (e.g., logging ISIS requests, recording and
reporting time and attendance, managing and ordering supplies, and
performing general receptionist activities). Some study participants
stated that some production staff do not consider currently needed
tasks as part of their duties and responsibilities. An example is
importing data from a variety of sources and transforming that data
into tables, graphs, and charts for inclusion into CRS products.
Several production staff reported oftentimes not having enough work to
keep them occupied full time.
As a result, the current system has created unmet production needs
and shifted product-preparation demands, particularly for assistance in
creating graphics and obtaining editorial assistance. Some analysts
have come to rely upon the Electronic Research Products Office and the
CRS Technology Office (TO) for assistance with these tasks.
Technical Support Assistant Functional Review: Findings
Summary from May 2005 Study
Because CRS research and analytic staff have become more
technically sophisticated, the need for basic technical services has
decreased. The study found that newly hired and other technically
sophisticated staff are more likely to try to diagnose and solve
problems themselves before contacting a technical support assistant
(TSA). Also, the study found TSA skill levels inconsistently meet the
needs of CRS staff.
TSAs provide a wide array of technical support assistance: most
work involves resolving hardware, software, CPU, password, and network
issues. Some also assist with special projects, provide graphics/
mapping support, develop guidance documents, and assist TO with
Service-wide projects. Study participants noted that work required of
TSAs is not standardized across CRS but instead varies by division and
office.
The current decentralized organizational structure does not ensure
consistent technical expertise. Across the research divisions TSAs
report to different levels of staff (assistant director, deputy
assistant director, project management coordinator, etc.), who prepare
their performance reviews. Further, potential for duplication of
efforts among CRS help desk and user support units and TSAs is not
cost-effective.
Audio-Visual Support Functional Review: Findings Summary
from August 2005 Study
Direct congressional demand for audio-visual products has been
declining for more than ten years. And the need by CRS analysts for
audio-visual support is uneven calling into question the need to retain
a separate, in-house staff for this purpose.
APPENDIX C: SALARY, COMPENSATION, AND RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY FOR THE AFFECTED STAFF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employer-
Job Class. Series Grade & Ret. Plan Job Title Annual Paid Total Cost
Step Salary Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRODUCTION STAFF
Staff Eligible for Full
Retirement and Separation
Incentive:
301.......................... 11-10...... CSRS....... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator.............. $69,614 $13,414 $83,028
301.......................... 11-10...... CSRS....... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator.............. $69,614 $9,189 $78,802
301.......................... 11-10...... CSRS....... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator.............. $69,614 $5,882 $75,496
344.......................... 8-10....... FERS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $15,917 $67,999
344.......................... 8-10....... FERS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $12,529 $64,612
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $12,296 $64,379
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $12,112 $64,195
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $12,040 $64,123
303.......................... 8-10....... FERS....... Sr. Sp. Adm. Support Assistant......................... $52,082 $10,194 $62,276
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $7,980 $60,062
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $7,872 $59,954
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $7,673 $59,756
303.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Sp. Adm. Support Assistant......................... $52,082 $7,603 $59,685
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $4,509 $56,591
1411......................... 6-10....... CSRS....... Library Technician..................................... $42,326 $7,135 $49,461
Staff Eligible for Early
Retirement and Separation
Incentive:
301.......................... 11-10...... CSRS....... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator.............. $69,614 $13,556 $83,169
344.......................... 8-10....... FERS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $15,917 $67,999
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $12,343 $64,426
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $12,040 $64,123
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $11,929 $64,011
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $7,874 $59,956
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $7,738 $59,820
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $7,673 $59,756
344.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $7,565 $59,648
344.......................... 8-9........ CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $50,762 $7,864 $58,626
303.......................... 8-10....... CSRS....... Sr. Special Adm. Support Assistant..................... $52,082 $4,509 $56,591
Staff Eligible for Separation
Incentive Only:
301.......................... 11-10...... FERS....... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator.............. $69,614 $24,119 $93,733
301.......................... 11-10...... FERS....... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator.............. $69,614 $16,744 $86,358
344.......................... 7-6........ FERS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $58,361 $16,141 $74,501
301.......................... 11-8....... CSRS....... Sr. Production/Administrative Coordinator.............. $57,387 $12,668 $70,054
344.......................... 8-9........ FERS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $50,762 $19,174 $69,936
344.......................... 8-8........ FERS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $49,420 $18,618 $68,038
344.......................... 8-10....... FERS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $52,082 $13,848 $65,930
344.......................... 8-8........ CSRS....... Sr. Production Assistant............................... $49,420 $15,014 $64,434
1411......................... 5-9........ FERS....... Reference Assistant.................................... $37,001 $11,782 $48,783
1411......................... 5-9........ FERS....... Reference Clerk........................................ $37,001 $11,484 $48,485
304.......................... 4-5........ FERS....... Receptionist........................................... $29,588 $5,553 $35,141
Staff Not Eligible for Retirement
or Separation Incentive:
304.......................... 4-1........ FERS....... Receptionist........................................... $26,989 $8,750 $35,740
-----------------------------------
Total Cost................. ........... ........... ....................................................... .......... .......... $2,429,674
===================================
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Staff Eligible for Full
Retirement and Separation
Incentive:
2210......................... 12-7....... CSRS....... Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................ $77,027 $14,344 $91,370
Staff Eligible for Early
Retirement and Separation
Incentive:
2210......................... 12-8....... CSRS....... Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................ $81,769 $19,282 $101,051
2210......................... 12-7....... CSRS....... Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................ $77,027 $14,404 $91,431
2210......................... 12-7....... CSRS....... Sr. Technical Support Assistant........................ $77,027 $9,866 $86,893
Staff Eligible for Separation
Incentive Only:
2210......................... 12-10...... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $83,438 $23,220 $106,658
2210......................... 12-7....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $79,157 $26,739 $105,896
2210......................... 12-7....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $77,027 $21,662 $98,688
2210......................... 12-5....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $72,745 $24,425 $97,170
2210......................... 12-5....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $74,875 $20,292 $95,167
2210......................... 12-4....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $70,594 $24,506 $95,099
2210......................... 12-4....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $70,594 $24,211 $94,805
2210......................... 12-6....... CSRS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $74,875 $18,496 $93,371
2210......................... 12-3....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $68,463 $24,090 $92,554
2210......................... 12-4....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $70,594 $20,079 $90,673
2210......................... 12-8....... CSRS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $79,157 $10,050 $89,207
2210......................... 12-2....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $66,333 $22,736 $89,069
2210......................... 12-2....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $66,333 $22,666 $88,999
2210......................... 12-4....... FERS....... Sr. Technical Support Asst............................. $46,107 $16,289 $62,395
-----------------------------------
Total Cost................. ........... ........... ....................................................... .......... .......... $1,670,496
-----------------------------------
AUDIO/VISUAL STAFF
All Audio/Visual Staff Are
Eligible for Early Retirement:
These staff are in the 1071 job
classification series. To honor
the privacy of the three
individual staff members in this
job series, CRS has not provided
individual salary and cost data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost................. ........... ........... ....................................................... .......... .......... $330,793
======================================================================================================================
Total CRS Costs for 59 ........... ........... ....................................................... .......... .......... $4,430,962
Affected Staff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX D: DIVERSITY COMPOSITION OF THE AFFECTED STAFF
[Breakdown of CRS Staff by Gender and Race Categories As of September 15, 2005]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total CRS Perm/ Affected Staff by Category
Indef Workforce -----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------ Production Technical Audio-Visual Total Affected
Category Support Support ------------------ Staff
------------------ Assistants -----------------
Number Percent ------------------ Number Percent
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female........................................................ 357 51.4 33 86.8 7 38.9 ....... ....... 40 67.8
Male.......................................................... 337 48.6 5 13.2 11 61.1 3 100.0 19 32.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 694 100.0 38 100.0 18 100.0 3 100.0 59 100.0
=========================================================================================
Minority Composition.......................................... 224 32.3 30 78.9 11 61.1 ....... ....... 41 69.5
Nat.Am/Alaskan............................................ 5 0.7 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Asian American............................................ 31 4.5 1 2.6 ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 1.7
African-American.......................................... 171 24.6 28 73.7 10 55.6 ....... ....... 38 64.4
Hispanic.................................................. 17 2.4 1 2.6 1 5.6 ....... ....... 2 3.4
Non-Minority.................................................. 470 67.7 8 21.1 7 38.9 3 100.0 18 30.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 694 100.0 38 100.0 18 100.0 3 100.0 59 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix E: Transition Resources Provided to Affected Staff
CRS is providing the following transition resources to affected
staff:
--an opportunity to participate in the Voluntary Early Retirement
Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment
(VSIP) programs. Deadline for applying is December 2, 2005.
Staff have from December 19, 2005 through January 3, 2006 to
separate from the Library under these programs. As of Tuesday,
November 1, 2005, 20 affected staff have applied for these
programs;
--a special briefing on the VERA/VSIP process restricted to eligible
CRS staff, in coordination with the Library's Office of Human
Resources Services;
--a two-day retirement seminar exclusively for these staff and their
spouses. The seminar was held on October 26 and 27. Twenty-
three affected staff members registered to attend, eighteen
attended;
--special individual retirement counseling, in coordination with the
Library's Office of Human Resources Services;
--special training sessions on how to apply for positions using the
Library's automated hiring system. The Library's Office of
Human Resources conducted sessions on October 12 and 13.
Individual sessions were arranged for those who were unable to
attend either of the earlier sessions;
--a career services web page where staff can access career-related
information and links to numerous websites including job search
engines, resume writing and interview guides, job fair
announcements, training opportunities, and more;
--services of a career counselor who will be available one day a week
through September of 2006 to meet individually with staff and
to present a career workshop once a month. The career counselor
is expected to be available early November 2005;
--a briefing on October 13, 2005 by a Reduction in Force (RIF) expert
who has been used frequently by the Library of Congress for
other RIFs to provide an overview of RIF procedures and to
answer questions, to include any follow-up questions by phone
and email;
--briefings on September 28, 2005 for all affected staff to review
these transition resources, and to give staff an opportunity to
ask questions; and
--continuous communications from the Associate Director for Workforce
Development by e-mail to inform when positions they may be
interested in opened, and other upcoming activities to include
career fairs, reminders of registration deadlines, and to
remind them that they may continue to submit any questions that
they have during the transition.
Question. In your testimony you state that extensive consultation
took place before you decided to eliminate production support, computer
technical support, and audio-visual functions. With whom did you
consult? Was CRS staff in any way involved before you made your
decision?
Answer. Before the final decision was made, in addition to multiple
meetings with the Service's senior managers, CRS solicited input
through a variety of venues including forums, one-on-one conversations,
e-mail exchanges. CRS also held follow-up discussions with potentially
affected staff as well as staff who use their services, including a
sample of analysts, attorneys, and section heads (first-line
supervisors).
Question. Were the affected staffs given an opportunity to receive
training that may have given them an opportunity to keep their job or
to apply for other positions within CRS?
Answer. The skills required for the Service's new technical
positions are quite different from those required for the older
production support and technical positions that will be abolished. The
specialized expertise required for these new positions cannot be
acquired or developed through some selected training courses.
In addition to traditional production support, the incumbents of
the two older production support positions performed some
administrative tasks as well. One of the current production support
positions is supervisory/managerial at the GS-11 grade level; and, the
other is non-supervisory at the GS-8 grade level.
When CRS defined the new work tasks and developed the associated
position descriptions, all of the administrative tasks were
consolidated into two new positions, one is supervisory at the GS-11
grade level and the other was classified by the Library of Congress
Human Resources Services as a GS-7, one grade level lower than the GS-8
production position. Both of the new administrative positions will have
fewer incumbents (ten total) than the number of incumbents of the
current production positions (33 total). So far, three of the affected
staff were competitively selected for these ten new administrative
positions. A fourth individual from the affected staff was also
selected but declined the offer and chose instead to retire.
CRS affected staff continue to receive training for the work that
they perform in their current positions. However, selecting particular
individuals for specific training to improve their credentials for a
new job could be seen as running counter to merit-selection principles
inherent in OPM regulations implementing the Government Employee
Training Act. Information provided in the following questions addresses
the issues of training staff for future positions.
Question. What actions have you taken to work with the rest of the
Library to find positions for the remaining 31 staff?
Answer. CRS and the Library will begin the process of seeking
placements for the remaining staff in June. The data and conditions for
placing the remaining staff are dictated by law, regulation, and the
CRS collective bargaining agreement, which govern when a reduction-in-
force is established.
When the staffing changes were announced last September, it was the
Director's hope that by providing a 12-month notice, separation
incentives, voluntary early retirement opportunities, and transition
services that all 59 individuals would vacate the positions before
September 30, 2006. At this time, 29 of the 59 affected staff have
retired, resigned, or secured other positions. In the meantime, CRS
continues to provide a variety of career counseling services to
affected staff and to provide weekly notices of CRS and Library posted
positions that may be of interest to them.
Question. How closely have you worked with the new Center for
Learning and Development in the Library to assist affected staff in
training for current and future positions in the Library?
Answer. Staff from the CRS Office of Workforce Development worked
closely with the Library's Center for Learning and Development in
identifying 600 online courses that would provide a broad array of
training for Library staff as it pertains to their current positions.
The availability of courses has been communicated to all CRS staff and
a number of CRS staff members, including the affected staff, have taken
online courses.
The On-line Learning Center has been a topic of discussion at the
weekly CRS Research Policy Council meetings of senior managers who are
advised to encourage staff to enroll in the online training. As a
result, a number of affected staff have taken advantage of these
training opportunities. In addition, the Career Services Web Page that
was established specifically for affected staff includes a link to the
Online Learning Center.
Providing training for future positions becomes more complex. The
Government Employee Training Act (GETA) permits training ``which will
improve individual and organizational performance and assist in
achieving the agency's mission and performance goals.'' [5 USC4101(4)]
OPM implementing regulations provide that ``mission-related training''
includes training that improves an employee's current job performance
and training that ``[a]llows for expansion or enhancement of an
employee's current job [or e]nables an employee to perform needed or
potentially needed duties outside the current job at the same level of
responsibility.'' [5 CFR 410.101 (d)]
Retraining ``to address an individual's skills obsolescence in the
current position and/or training and development to prepare an
individual for a different occupation, in the same agency, in another
government agency, or in the private sector'' is also permitted under
OPM regulations. [5 CFR 410.101(e)] The selection of employees for
training opportunities, however, must follow merit system principles.
[5 CFR 410.302 (a)(1)] Each agency must establish criteria for the
``fair and equitable selection and assignment of employees to training
consistent with merit system principles.'' [5 CFR 410.306(a)]
Merit system principles are particularly applicable to training
designed to prepare employees for advancement. Thus, OPM's Training
Policy Handbook provides that ``[a]gencies' training programs must
consider all employees fairly'' and that ``[a]gency merit promotion
procedures must be followed in selecting employees for training that is
primarily to prepare trainees for advancement and that is not directly
related to improving performance in their current positions.''
Selecting particular employees to be accorded specific training
designed to improve their advancement possibilities or to qualify them
for other positions could be seen to run counter to merit selection
principles. The Library and CRS have developed a merit selection
process for filling positions, and CRS also applies competitive
procedures to its longer term details within the agency and to
designating section heads. The GETA and implementing regulations would
also seem to dictate that similar principles be applied in the
provision of training.
The focus of all training opportunities provided to staff complies
with the Service's obligation to enhance staff skills for the positions
currently held, rather than to provide training for possible future
positions that could be seen as running counter to merit-selection
principles inherent in OPM regulations implementing the GETA.
Question. It is my understanding that of the 59 staff being
eliminated, nearly 70 percent are minorities. What are your plans to
address the major loss of minority employees in CRS?
Answer. CRS is dedicated to maintaining a diverse workforce. When
CRS announced its plan to eliminate three functions, the diversity
profile of the Service was 32.3 percent minority. If all of the
affected staff would have left and no new hires added, the CRS
workforce would have been reduced to 635 and the racial and ethnic
profile of that reduced staff would have reflected a minority
population of 28.8 percent. The proportion of Asian Americans would
have increased from 4.5 percent to 4.7 percent; Native Americans would
have increased from .7 percent to .8 percent; Hispanics would have
remained the same at 2.4 percent; and the proportion of African
Americans would have decreased from 24.6 percent to 20.9 percent.
Instead, as of February 28, 2006, after the retirement of 23
affected staff, attrition unrelated to the workforce re-engineering,
and the hiring of new staff in accordance with the CRS hiring plan,
31.1 percent of CRS' total permanent/indefinite workforce of 685 is
minority; .7 percent Native American, 4.7 percent Asian American, 23.1
percent African American, and 2.6 percent Hispanic.
CRS has filled four (4) of the new positions (with 12 incumbents).
Of the twelve incumbents hired, nine (75 percent) are minorities, and
all of whom are African American females.
CRS will continue to use national recruitment and hiring programs
and sources to attract minority applicants to CRS. These programs
include targeting universities and public policy schools with high
minority enrollments to serve as recruitment sources for entry-level
professional positions, and forging special connections with minority-
serving organizations such as Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, the United Negro College Fund, the Congressional Black
Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and others. In addition, CRS
continues to use programs such as the CRS Law Recruit Program, the
Student Diversity Internship Program, the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities National Internship Program, and the Federal
Presidential Management Fellowship Program to recruit minorities for
CRS positions.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Allard. The subcommittee stands in recess and we
will meet next on March 15 at 10:30 a.m., when we will take
testimony from the Secretary of the Senate and Architect of the
Capitol on their fiscal year 2007 budget requests. In addition,
we will hear from witnesses regarding progress of the Capitol
Visitor Center as part of the monthly oversight of that
particular project.
I thank the participants today for sharing their views with
us.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, March 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, March 15.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Allard and Durbin.
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF EMILY REYNOLDS, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MARY SUIT JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
CHRIS DOBY, FINANCIAL CLERK
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning everybody. We meet today to take testimony on the
fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Secretary of the Senate
and the Architect of the Capitol, and review progress of the
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) construction. The legislative
branch budget request totals roughly $4.2 billion, an increase
of $460 million or 12 percent over the current year.
While most agencies in the President's budget would be
frozen at current levels, a number of the agencies before this
subcommittee have proposed very substantial increases and we
will need to scrutinize these requests very carefully. We will
have three separate panels today. Secretary Emily Reynolds will
testify first, she's accompanied by Assistant Secretary of the
Senate Mary Suit Jones, and the new Financial Clerk of the
Senate Chris Doby.
Our second panel will be the Architect of the Capitol, Alan
Hantman, and our third panel to discuss progress of the Capitol
Visitor Center construction will include Mr. Hantman, CVC
Project Executive Bob Hixon, and GAO representatives Bernie
Ungar and Terrell Dorn.
I extend a welcome to our witnesses this morning. Ms.
Reynolds, your office is requesting a budget of about $24
million, an increase of roughly $1 million, or just above 5
percent over fiscal year 2006. This budget would support the 26
departments that are part of the Office of the Secretary and
would accommodate cost of living and merit increases. And we'll
now proceed to the first panel. Welcome Ms. Reynolds. You may
proceed with your testimony. It's good to see you.
Ms. Reynolds. Thank you Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to be
with you. We're, of course, very grateful for your leadership
as our subcommittee chairman, and we appreciate this
opportunity to talk about the work of the Secretary's office.
I'd like to ask that my full statement, which, of course,
includes our complete department reports, be submitted for the
record.
Today I would just like to give you a brief overview of the
Secretary's operation and most importantly that budget request
for fiscal year 2007 that you mentioned. As you said, we've
requested about $24 million; $22 million of that is in salary
cost and $1.9 million for operating expenses. That slight
increase as you've referenced is in cost of living allowance
(COLA) and merit increases so that we can continue to attract
and retain the talent that the Senate requires and deserves for
the critical day to day operations that we provide.
And I'd like to take a couple of minutes today and just
highlight some of the work of the past year, since we were all
last together at this hearing. There are three key words that
come to mind in reflecting on the Secretary's operation. And
those are continuity, creativity and collaboration. That's how
our office functions and I want to mention in particular in
terms of continuity, because in so many respects we are the
institutional memory of the Senate. We take very seriously the
responsibility of passing that knowledge along from generation
to generation, incoming class to incoming class, office to
office. Our legislative department, the great folks that you
see on the floor of the Senate each and every day, continue to
cross train among their various specialties, and about half of
that staff is cross trained.
We're also blessed in that a large number of people come to
serve the Senate for an extended period of time, but it makes
it all the more important when you begin to lose that
institutional memory in retirements that we try to anticipate
those changes and work toward an appropriate line of
succession. And at all times, we strive to attract and retain
the best talent possible. Individuals for whom coming to the
Senate to serve this body as their career is a high priority.
And, of course, on a much broader scale, it's our
responsibility to prepare daily so that you and your colleagues
can carry out your constitutional responsibilities under any
circumstance. So for us that continuity has both a daily impact
and a much broader view as well.
I mention creativity as well and I hope that we bring a
certain level of creativity in each of our 26 departments. And
I'd like to just highlight five things today that we're doing.
A perfect example of that creativity is the Senate's
website. And our new home page in particular which we're very
proud to have the chance to show off and talk about a little
bit. All of our lives have been changed dramatically by the
worldwide web, and the Senate is no exception. Senate.gov now
celebrates a decade of service to the Senate community and the
general public and received an astonishing 50 million visits
last year. That's five times as many as just 5 years ago, so
remarkable growth in terms of the public's access to
senate.gov. And with that, thanks to the support of this
subcommittee we unveiled a handsome new home page in January.
There's more content on the front page, the site also provides
site wide searches from every page, and, of course, most
importantly those direct links to the Members' home pages.
I'm really delighted that U.S. News took note of the new
homepage, and described it as a rich new website and one that's
much easier to research. I also mentioned to you when we were
here last year, that our historical office had underway a
project of a pictorial directory, with the images of all
Senators who have served since 1789, by State and by class.
That book ``Faces of the Senate'' was completed in November and
it really is a treasure. It was a monumental effort on the part
of our Senate photo historian. And it was interesting in that
as she reached out to historical societies, museums and other
organizations in trying to locate as many images as possible,
the project attracted the attention of a National Guardsman
from Vermont who was stationed in Iraq. He was working on a
historical project for his unit, and he e-mailed our photo
historian saying I don't have a lot of time to assist, but with
my own project I'm finding resources out there I never knew
existed. And amazingly enough, he helped us locate six images
of former Members for whom we had no previous record.
The gift shop I want to mention, a tremendous presence here
in the Senate. And we've enhanced the gift shop operation by
adding an online presence to our intranet Webster so that our
Senate community can more easily see the vast array of products
that we have available.
I'm also proud that in this bicentennial year of
Constantino Brumidi's birth, the artist of the Capitol, we've
added a product line with Brumidi featured merchandise so that
our merchandise reflects the rich history of the Capitol and
hopefully for people it has some educational value as well.
You may also recall, that 2 years ago we completed the
publication of the Senate's fine arts catalogue. A beautiful
volume, the companion volume, a catalogue of our graphics art
collection will be available later this year. And just like the
fine arts publication, it will be a magnificent presentation of
the 900 historic engravings and lithographs in the Senate
collection.
I had the opportunity to speak last week with a member of
our curatorial advisory board, and she said that she believed
that this publication will be very well received in the arts
community, the academic community, as a first ever glance if
you will at this tremendous collection of the Senate's and it's
an excellent research tool. So we'll have that to you later
this year. I'm excited about it.
In the Senate reception room, thanks to the leadership of
Senator Dodd, we will add an important representation from the
18th century. And that's the addition of a mural that will
commemorate the two authors of the Great or Connecticut
Compromise. That mural will depict the authors of that
compromise, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth and will be
unveiled later this year.
And finally in terms of collaboration, so much of what we
do each and every day is dependent on a team approach, among
our departments working with the Architect of the Capitol,
working with members of the Senate community and especially
with our Sergeant at Arms. And once again I'd love to give
three quick examples. I want to publicly thank and commend the
Sergeant at Arms, and this subcommittee without whose support
the project would not have been possible for the completion of
the new Senate support facility. From our gift shop,
stationery, the curator, library, our disbursing operation,
having that state-of-the-art storage space will make a
difference each and every day in terms of the level of support
we provide our Senate community. The facility is a welcome
addition and should serve our needs for years to come.
One of the most important services that you and your
colleagues offer the folks at home is providing flags that are
flown over the Capitol, and we have an exciting pilot project
underway with 26 offices and I believe your office is one, to
streamline that process of the purchase of pre-flown flags.
It's become cumbersome at times, and again thanks to this
pilot, we should have real success and report back to you on
that along the way.
And finally our legislative information system, another
project generously funded by this subcommittee, we've made
tremendous progress again this year. Again a team effort
between our LIS Office and most especially the Senate
Legislative Counsel. Already this year, over 95 percent of the
bills introduced in this session of the 109th Congress have
been written and formatted through the XML authoring
application known as LEXA. So we're very proud of that
milestone.
I often marvel that the first Secretary of the Senate
carried out his responsibilities alone, in the first years of
the Senate's existence. By the time he died in office in 1814,
he had convinced his appropriators to allow him to hire two
clerks. As much as things have changed and as our
responsibilities have grown through the years, the three
fundamental responsibilities of our office, to provide the
legislative, financial, and administrative support to this
institution remain at the heart of what we do, each and every
day. It's our duty and our honor to carry out these functions
for the Senate.
PREPARED STATEMENT
On behalf of our entire team, we thank this subcommittee
Mr. Chairman, for your support and I look forward to questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Emily J. Reynolds
Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for your invitation to present testimony in support of the
budget request of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate for fiscal
year 2007.
Detailed information about the work of the 26 departments of the
Office of the Secretary is provided in the annual reports which follow.
I am pleased to provide this statement to highlight the achievements of
the Office and the outstanding work of our dedicated employees.
My statement includes: Presenting the fiscal year 2007 budget
request; implementing mandated systems: financial management
information system (FMIS) and legislative information system (LIS);
Capitol Visitor Center; continuity of operations planning; and
maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial
and administrative services.
presenting the fiscal year 2007 budget request
I am requesting a total fiscal year 2007 budget of $24,066,000. The
fiscal year 2007 budget request is comprised of $22,166,000 in salary
costs and $1,900,000 for the operating budget of the Office of the
Secretary. The salary budget represents an increase over the fiscal
year 2006 budget as a result of (1) the costs associated with the
annual Cost of Living Adjustment in the amount of $654,000 and (2) an
additional $646,000 for merit increases and other staffing. The
operating budget represents a decrease of $80,000 from fiscal year
2006. The funding for the study on employment compensation, hiring and
benefits practices, included in last year's funding, is a non-
reoccurring expense.
The net effect of my total budget request for fiscal year 2007 is
an increase of $1,220,000.
Our request in the operating budget is a sound one, enabling us to
meet our operating needs and provide the necessary services to the
United State Senate through our legislative, financial and
administrative offices.
In reference to the salary budget, first and foremost, this request
will enable us to continue to attract and retain talented and dedicated
individuals to serve the needs of the United States Senate.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
available Budget
Item fiscal year estimate Difference
2006, Public fiscal year
Law 109-55 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental operating budget:
Executive office............................................ $630,000 $550,000 -80,000
Administrative services..................................... 1,290,000 1,290,000 ..............
Legislative services........................................ 60,000 60,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total operating budget.................................... 1,980,000 1,900,000 -80,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
implementing mandated systems
Two systems critical to our operation are mandated by law, and I
would like to spend a few moments on each to highlight recent progress,
and to thank the committee for your ongoing support of both.
Financial Management Information System (FMIS)
The Financial Management Information System, or FMIS, is used by
approximately 140 offices. Consistent with the five year strategic
plan, the Disbursing Office continues to modernize processes and
applications to meet the continued demand by Senate offices for
efficiency, accountability and ease of use. The goal is to move to a
paperless voucher system, improve the Web FMIS system, and make payroll
and accounting system improvements.
Over the last two years work has been underway to update and
simplify the underlying technology of Web FMIS, basically replacing all
Visual Basic Client/Server and Cold Fusion Web technology with
WebSphere web pages thereby creating a ``thin client'' application that
can be accessed via an intranet browser. In August 2004 Web FMIS r9.0
for pilot offices, which was a complete rewriting of the Web FMIS
functionality using all intranet based pages, was implemented. By the
end of April, all Web FMIS users were using the intranet version of Web
FMIS.
During fiscal year 2005 and the first half of fiscal year 2006,
improvements to Web FMIS were as follows:
--In the November 2004 release, additional functionality identified
by the pilot offices was addressed. This new release was
provided to new offices of the 109th Congress. In the February
2005 release, a security certificate was added to the Web FMIS
web site (i.e., adding the ``S'' to https://webfmis.senate.gov)
and changed the extracts for the nightly Web FMIS reporting
cycle to use table-driven parameters rather than hard-coded
ones. In April 2005, report and document printing was provided
via Adobe, standard Senate software, rather than Web FMIS-
specific files. This completed moving Web FMIS to the ``zero-
client'' platform, an important milestone in providing critical
systems in a disaster situation. With this change, the Rules
Committee Audit staff moved from client-server based screens to
intranet-based pages for their functions, Disbursing staff
began to use ``standard notepad text'' in documenting
corrections made to vouchers. In July 2005, the focus was on
additional functionality for Disbursing, including new pages
for the Inbox and Document Review functions, enhancements to
the Advice of Change process and streamlining the document
approval process. Technology was updated and provided more
functionality on the Inbox pages and the travel reimbursement
mileage rate maintenance page. Additional functionality was
added to the Documents/Create page and the Budget page, and
bugs were fixed.
--In May 2005, the SAVI system was upgraded, which enables Senate
staff to check the status of reimbursements, whether via check
or direct deposit, to enable its use by Macintosh computer
users.
--The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via
check using the Checkwriter software. In 2006, Checkwriter
release 6, which rewrites the security component, will be
tested with implementation tentatively scheduled for summer
2006.
--On Saturday, December 3, 2005, the Sergeant at Arms technical staff
conducted a disaster recovery test of the Senate's computing
facilities, including the financial management information
system (FMIS) functions. The test involved switching the
Senate's network from accessing systems at the Primary
Computing Facility (PCF) to the backup facility, and powering
down the PCF.
The SAA's primary purpose was to test the technical process of
switching to our backup facility, and only a limited amount of
time was available for functional testing. The SAA staff wanted
to complete the exercise within a 12-hour window, including the
time needed to switch us to the backup facility and back to the
PCF. A two-hour functional testing window was expected. In the
scenario, FMIS systems and data would be ``failed-over'' to the
backup facility, and made available for testing during the
functional testing window. The systems would then be ``failed
back'' to the PCF, but the data would not be ``failed back''.
Consequently, any changes made while testing at the backup
facility would not be made to production data.
Within the limited scope of what we were able to test, most of
the critical components of FMIS were successfully tested. A
request has been made to the SAA that disaster recovery tests
be conducted twice a year and that additional system components
be tested at each successive event.
--The computing infrastructure for FMIS is provided by the Sergeant
at Arms. Each year upgrades are made to the infrastructure
software. The major upgrade this year was the implementation of
a new version of the mainframe operating system software, ``Z/
OS.'' This upgrade required FMIS testing, both before
implementation to identify and resolve any incompatibilities,
and after implementation to verify that all functions are
working properly.
During 2005 work continued with Bearing Point to define the
requirements for additional functionality required for the two Web FMIS
releases planned for 2006:
--Web FMIS r11 B.--Planned for Summer 2006, this release will add the
ability to ``import'' invoice data from an outside vendor in
order to create a voucher with minimal re-typing. (This process
is similar to the ``import'' process by which data from an
online ESR, created via SAVI, is used to create a travel
voucher).
--Web FMIS r12 B.--Planned for late Fall 2006, this release will be a
pilot of paperless voucher processing, which requires adding
electronic signature and documentation imaging functionality.
In addition, during fiscal year 2006 the following FMIS activities
are anticipated:
--Developing requirements for integrating the Funds Advance Tracking
System (FATS) into FMIS. FATS, a stand-alone PC-based system,
tracks election cycle information used in the voucher review
process, and tracks travel advances and petty cash advances
against dollar maximum and total allocation rules.
--Implementing DB2 vs. 8 in compatibility mode.
--Researching the implementation of online distribution of system
reports.
--Completing fiscal year 2004 Financial Statements in Hyperion and
start working on fiscal year 2005.
--Performing some minor enhancements to the FAMIS vendor file.
A more detailed report on FMIS is included in the department report
of the Disbursing Office which follows.
Legislative Information System (LIS)
The LISAP project team continues to enhance the Senate's
legislative editing XML application (LEXA). The Office of the Senate
Legislative Counsel (SLC) used LEXA throughout 2005 and 80 percent of
introduced and reported measures for the first session of the 109th
Congress were created as XML documents. As modifications and features
were developed for LEXA, the SLC's use continues to increase. Thus far
in the second session of the 109th Congress, approximately 96 percent
of the introduced and reported bills have been created as XML
documents. Additional document types, such as conference reports and
engrossed and enrolled bills, were added to LEXA.
The LISAP project team continues to work with the Senate offices,
the Clerk of the House, the Government Printing Office and the Library
of Congress to develop standards and tools to create, print and
exchange legislative documents in XML. The Government Printing Office
(GPO) uses LEXA to update and print Senate XML documents as requested.
GPO also provides support for LEXA, as directed in the 2004 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, by maintaining the printing software in LEXA
that converts an XML document to locators for printing through
Microcomp. GPO is also in the process of reworking the software that
creates and prints tables. These tools will be incorporated into both
the Senate and House XML authoring applications.
A joint project to convert the compilations of current law to an
XML format was completed last year. Joint projects for this year
include completion of the new table tool and development of standards
for drafting appropriations amendments in XML. The Document Management
System (DMS) for the SLC will be implemented once the SLC has completed
the transition from XyWrite to LEXA. The SLC's DMS will be integrated
with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking, management and delivery
tool.
capitol visitor center
While the Architect of the Capitol directly oversees this massive
and impressive project, I would like to briefly mention the ongoing
involvement of the Secretary's office in this endeavor. My colleague,
the Clerk of the House, and I continue to facilitate weekly meetings
with senior staff of the joint leadership of Congress to address and
hopefully quickly resolve issues that might impact the status of the
project or the operation of Congress in general.
In addition, I also facilitate weekly meetings with the Architect's
office for the senior staff of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Capitol
Police, Rules Committee and Appropriations Committee in order to
address the expansion space plans for the Senate and any issues with
regard to the Capitol Visitor Center's (CVC's) construction that may
directly impact Senate operations.
Although the construction creates numerous temporary inconveniences
to Senators, staff and visitors, completion of the CVC will bring
substantial improvements in enhanced security and visitor amenities,
and its educational benefits for our visitors will be tremendous.
continuity of operations and emergency preparedness planning
The Office of the Secretary maintains a Continuity of Operations
(COOP) program to ensure that the Senate can fulfill its constitutional
obligations under any circumstances. Plans are in place to support
Senate floor operations both on and off Capitol Hill, and to permit
each department within the Office of the Secretary to perform its
essential functions during and after an emergency.
COOP planning in the Office of the Secretary began in late 2000.
Since that time, COOP plans were successfully implemented during the
anthrax and ricin incidents, and more than twenty drills and exercises
to test and refine our plans have been conducted. In conjunction with
the Sergeant at Arms, Capitol Police, the Office of the Attending
Physician and the Architect of the Capitol, Emergency Operations
Centers, Briefing Centers and Alternate Senate Chambers, have been
exercised both on and off campus.
In addition, equipment, supplies and other items critical to the
conduct of essential functions have been identified and assembled as
``fly-away kits'' for the Senate Chamber and for each department of the
Office of the Secretary. Multiple copies of each fly-away kit have been
produced; some are stored in our offices, and back-up kits are stored
nearby but off the main campus, as well as at other sites outside the
District of Columbia. This approach will enable the Office of the
Secretary to resume essential operations within 12 to 24 hours, even if
there is no opportunity to retrieve anything from our offices.
Today, the Office of the Secretary is prepared to do the following
in the event of emergency:
--support Senate Floor operations in an Alternate Senate Chamber
within 12 hours on campus, and within 24 to 72 hours off
campus, depending upon location;
--support an emergency legislative session at a Briefing Center, if
required;
--support Briefing Center Operations at any of three designated
locations within 1 hour;
--activate an Emergency Operations Center at Postal Square or another
near-campus site within 1 hour; and
--activate an Emergency Operations Center at another site within the
National Capital region within 3 hours.
Activities in the Past Year
During the past year, the Office of the Secretary continued to
update, refine and exercise emergency preparedness plans and
operations. Specific activities included the following:
--Updated plans for use of an Alternate Senate Chamber, Briefing
Center and Emergency Operations Center;
--Working with the Capitol Police and the Office of the Sergeant at
Arms, refined response plans for air threat incidents;
--Updated fly-away kits for use at an Alternate Chamber; and
--Conducted and participated in ten emergency preparedness drills and
exercises.
The central mission of the Office of the Secretary is to provide
the legislative, financial and administrative support required for the
conduct of Senate business. Our emergency preparedness programs are
designed to ensure that the Senate can carry out its Constitutional
functions under any circumstances. These programs are critical to our
mission, and they are a permanent, integral part of the Secretary's
ongoing operation.
maintaining and improving current and historic legislative, financial
and administrative services
legislative offices
The Legislative Department of the Office of the Secretary of the
Senate provides the support essential to Senators to carry out their
daily chamber activities as well as the constitutional responsibilities
of the Senate. The department consists of eight offices--the Bill
Clerk, Captioning Services, Daily Digest, Enrolling Clerk, Executive
Clerk, Journal Clerk, Legislative Clerk, and the Official Reporters of
Debates, which are supervised by the Secretary through the Legislative
Clerk. The Parliamentarian's office is also part of the Legislative
Department of the Secretary of the Senate.
Each of the nine offices within the Legislative Department is
supervised by experienced veterans of the Secretary's office. The
average length of service of legislative supervisors in the Office of
the Secretary of the Senate is 20 years. The experience of this senior
professional staff is a great asset for the Senate. In order to ensure
well-rounded expertise, the legislative team cross-trains extensively
among their specialties.
1. bill clerk
The Office of the Bill Clerk collects and records data on the
legislative activity of the Senate, which becomes the historical record
of official Senate business. The Bill Clerk's Office keeps this
information in its handwritten files and ledgers and also enters it
into the Senate's automated retrieval system so that it is available to
all House and Senate offices via the Legislative Information System
(LIS). The Bill Clerk records actions of the Senate with regard to
bills, resolutions, reports, amendments, co-sponsors, public law
numbers, and recorded votes. The Bill Clerk is responsible for
preparing for print all measures introduced, received, submitted, and
reported in the Senate. The Bill Clerk also assigns numbers to all
Senate bills and resolutions. All the information received in this
office comes directly from the Senate floor in written form. The Bill
Clerk's office is generally regarded as the most timely and most
accurate source of legislative information.
Legislative Activity
The Bill Clerk's office processed into the database more than 2,000
additional legislative items and 150 additional roll call votes than
the previous session. For comparative purposes, below is a summary of
the 108th Congress, broken down into 1st and 2nd sessions, as compared
to the first session of the 109th Congress:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108th 109th 108th 109th
Congress, Congress, Congress, Congress,
1st Session 1st Session 2nd Session 1st Session
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Bills............................................ 2,003 2,169 1,032 2,169
Senate Joint Resolutions................................ 26 27 16 27
Senate Concurrent Resolutions........................... 86 75 66 75
Senate Resolutions...................................... 283 347 204 347
Amendments Submitted.................................... 2,231 2,695 1,857 2,695
House Bills............................................. 282 286 322 286
House Joint Resolutions................................. 20 11 12 11
House Concurrent Resolutions............................ 78 88 87 88
Measures Reported....................................... 352 286 317 286
Written Reports......................................... 220 212 208 212
-------------------------------------------------------
Total Legislation................................. 5,571 6,196 4,121 6,196
=======================================================
Roll Call Votes......................................... 459 366 216 366
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistance from the Government Printing Office (GPO)
The Bill Clerk's office maintains a good working relationship with
the Government Printing Office with the common goal of providing the
best service possible to meet the needs of the Senate. Toward this end,
GPO continues to respond in a timely manner to the Secretary's request
through the Bill Clerk's office for the printing of bills and reports,
including the expedited printing of priority matters for the Senate
chamber. For example, the Secretary requested, through the Bill Clerk,
that GPO expedite the printing of roughly 60 measures for consideration
by the Senate.
Projects
Amendment Tracking System (ATS).--In the fall of 2001, the Rules
Committee staff approached the Secretary's office with the task of
scanning submitted amendments onto the Amendment Tracking System on
LIS. The Rules Committee identified a need for Senate staff to have all
amendments submitted in the Senate made available to them online
shortly after being submitted, especially during cloture. Rules
Committee also requested that the Secretary assess the feasibility of
lifting the page limitation for scanning amendments onto the ATS
Indexer.
In September 2005, the Secretary of the Senate, through the Bill
Clerk's office, began scanning submitted amendments to the ATS Indexer.
The Technology Development division of the Sergeant at Arms office has
been quick and responsive, making the ATS Indexer a dynamic, usable
tool available to the Senate community. The Bill Clerks were able to
implement this new requirement seamlessly. With the added function of
the ATS Indexer, the Secretary has made available to the Senate
community all amendments, submitted and proposed, and in doing so,
lifted the page limit from 25 to 50. Initial response from users is
both positive and constructive.
Electronic Ledger System.--Shortly after the September 2001 attacks
and the subsequent anthrax attacks in the Capitol complex, the Bill
Clerk identified the need to have available an electronic version of
the official Senate ledgers in order to ensure the integrity of the
information recorded in the books. It is anticipated that the
electronic version will be available for use during possible emergency
scenarios, either via remote access or portable device. The Technology
Development division of the Sergeant-at-Arms is working to develop two
separate functions of this ledger system. One is an electronic data
entry system, which will mimic the layout of the current Senate ledgers
printed by the Government Printing Office. The other, a search
function, has already been developed and is currently in use in select
clerical offices of the legislative staff and is routinely enhanced and
modified by the excellent ELS project team at Postal Square. Both of
these programs will be housed on a separate server to maintain the
integrity of the ledger data. This search system offers an invaluable
tool capable of utilizing more complex search requirements.
2. office of captioning services
The Office of Captioning Services provides realtime captioning of
Senate floor proceedings for the deaf and hard-of-hearing and
unofficial electronic transcripts of Senate floor proceedings to Senate
offices via the Senate intranet.
General Overview
Accuracy continues to be the top priority of this Office. Overall
caption quality is monitored through daily Translation Data Reports,
monitoring of captions in realtime, and review of caption files on the
Senate intranet. Dedication to this process has produced an overall
captioning accuracy average above 99 percent this past year.
A major event of 2005 for the Office of Captioning Services was
realtime captioning the 55th Annual Presidential Inauguration. The
Office's captions of the historic event appeared on six jumbotrons
located on the West Front of the Capitol and the National Mall.
Continuity of operations planning and preparation during 2005
continued to be a priority to ensure staff is prepared and confident
about the Office's ability to relocate and successfully caption from a
remote location in the event of an emergency. Participation in a
Continuity of Operations template review project with the Sergeant at
Arms Continuity of Operations Program Manager provided an excellent
opportunity for an in-depth review of the Office of Captioning
Service's Plan.
Technology Update
The Office received a major upgrade of software and hardware in
2004 and thus continues to work with vendors to provide enhancements
and correct deficiencies in the new realtime captioning software.
2006 Objectives
The Office of Captioning Services constantly strives to maintain
and improve the high level of caption accuracy that has been
established. The Office is committed to this goal and will strive to
find new and innovative ways to accomplish this objective.
Another priority of the Office of Captioning Services will be to
prepare and plan for the procurement and installation of equipment and
relocation of the Office of Captioning Services to the Senate expansion
space in the Capitol Visitor Center.
3. senate daily digest
The Senate Daily Digest serves seven principal functions:
--To render a brief, concise and easy-to-read accounting of all
official actions taken by the Senate in the Congressional
Record section known as the Daily Digest.
--To compile an accounting of all meetings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees and committees of conference.
--To enter all Senate and Joint committee scheduling data into the
Senate's 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.
--To enter into the Senate's Legislative Information System all
official actions taken by Senate committees on legislation,
nominations, and treaties.
--To publish in the Daily Digest a listing of all legislation which
have become public law.
--To publish on the first legislative day of each month in the Daily
Digest a ``Resume of Congressional Activity'' which includes
all Congressional statistical information, including days and
time in session; measures introduced, reported and passed; and
roll call votes. (See Resume of Congressional Activity which
follows).
--To assist the House Daily Digest Editor in the preparation at the
end of each session of Congress a history of public bills
enacted into law and a final resume of congressional
statistical activity.
Committee Activity
Senate committees held a total of 874 meetings during the first
session of the 109th Congress, as contrasted with 838 meetings during
the first session of the 108th Congress.
All hearings and business meetings (including joint meetings and
conferences) are scheduled through the Office of the Senate Daily
Digest and are published in the Congressional Record and entered in the
Legislative Information System. Meeting outcomes are also published by
the Daily Digest in the Congressional Record each day.
Chamber Activity
The Senate was in session a total of 159 days, for a total of 1,222
hours and 26 minutes. There were 3 live quorum calls and 366 record
votes. (See Chart depicting a 20-Year Comparison of Senate Legislative
Activity which follows).
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Convened..................................... 1/21 1/6 1/25 1/3 1/23 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/25 1/4
Senate Adjourned.................................... 10/18 12/22 10/21 11/21 10/28 1/3/92 10/9 11/26 12/01 1/3/96
Days in Session..................................... 143 170 137 136 138 158 129 153 138 211
Hours in Session.................................... 1,27815" 1,21452" 1,12648" 1,00319" 1,25014" 1,20044" 1,09109" 1,26941" 1,24333" 1,83910"
Average Hours per Day............................... 8.9 7.1 8.2 7.4 9.1 7.6 8.5 8.3 9.0 8.7
Total Measures Passed............................... 747 616 814 605 716 626 651 473 465 346
Roll Call Votes..................................... 359 420 379 312 326 280 270 395 329 613
Quorum Calls........................................ 16 36 26 11 3 3 5 2 6 3
Public Laws......................................... 424 240 473 240 244 243 347 210 255 88
Treaties Ratified................................... 12 3 15 9 15 15 32 20 8 10
Nominations Confirmed............................... 39,893 46,404 42,317 45,585 42,493 45,369 30,619 38,676 37,446 40,535
Average Voting Attendance........................... 95.72 94.03 91.58 98.0 97.47 97.16 95.4 97.6 97.02 98.07
Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon.................... 117 131 120 95 116 126 112 128 120 184
Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................ 25 12 12 14 4 9 ............ 6 9 2
Sessions Convened after 12 Noon..................... 1 25 5 27 17 23 10 15 17 12
Sessions Continued after 6 p.m...................... 92 97 37 88 100 102 91 100 100 158
Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................ 15 6 7 9 13 6 4 9 7 3
Saturday Sessions................................... 2 3 ............ 1 3 2 2 2 3 5
Sunday Sessions..................................... ............ 1 ............ ............ 2 ............ ............ ............ ............ 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-YEAR COMPARISON OF SENATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY--Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Convened..................................... 1/3 1/3 1/27 1/6 1/24 1/3 1/23 1/7 1/20 1/4
Senate Adjourned.................................... 10/4 11/13 10/21 11/19 12/15 12/20 11/20 12/9 12/8 12/22
Days in Session..................................... 132 153 143 162 141 173 149 167 133 159
Hours in Session.................................... 1,03645" 1,09307" 1,09505" 1,18357" 1,01751" 1,23615" 1,04223" 1,45405" 1,03131" 1,22226"
Average Hours per Day............................... 7.8 7.1 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 8.7 7.7 7.7
Total Measures Passed............................... 476 386 506 549 696 425 523 590 663 624
Roll Call Votes..................................... 306 298 314 374 298 380 253 459 216 366
Quorum Calls........................................ 2 6 4 7 6 3 2 3 1 3
Public Laws......................................... 245 153 241 170 410 136 241 198 300 170
Treaties Ratified................................... 28 15 53 13 39 3 17 11 15 6
Nominations Confirmed............................... 33,176 25,576 20,302 22,468 22,512 25,091 23,633 21,580 24,420 25,942
Average Voting Attendance........................... 98.22 98.68 97.47 98.02 96.99 98.29 96.36 96.07 95.54 97.41
Sessions Convened Before 12 Noon.................... 113 115 109 118 107 140 119 133 104 121
Sessions Convened at 12 Noon........................ 15 12 31 17 25 10 12 4 9 1
Sessions Convened after 12 Noon..................... 7 7 2 19 24 21 23 23 21 36
Sessions Continued after 6 p.m...................... 88 96 93 113 94 108 103 134 129 120
Sessions Continued after 12 Midnight................ 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ 2 3 8 2 3
Saturday Sessions................................... 1 1 1 3 1 3 ............ 1 2 2
Sunday Sessions..................................... ............ 1 ............ ............ 1 ............ ............ 1 1 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest--Office of the Secretary.
Computer Activities
The Daily Digest continues to send the complete publication at the
end of each day to the Government Printing Office electronically. The
Editor, Assistant Editor, and Committee Scheduling Coordinator function
solely within the framework of adaptability to prepare Digest copy on
computers, storing and sharing information, permitting prompt editing,
and the final transfer to floppy disc. The Digest continues the
practice of sending a disc along with a duplicate hard copy to GPO,
even though GPO receives the Digest copy by electronic transfer long
before hand delivery is completed adding to the timeliness of
publishing the Congressional Record. The Digest office continues to
feel comfortable with this procedure, both to allow the Digest Editor
to physically view what is being transmitted to GPO, and to allow GPO
staff to have a comparable final product to cross reference.
The Digest office continues to work closely with Senate computer
staff to refine the LIS/DMS system, including further refinements to
the Senate committee scheduling application which will improve the data
entry process. The committee scheduling application was developed in
1999 as a server-based web-enabled application that is browser
accessible to all Senate offices. It was designed to replace the
committee scheduling functions and reports that were supported by the
mainframe-based Senate Legis System.
Government Printing Office (GPO)
The Daily Digest continues to discuss with the Government Printing
Office problems encountered with the printing of the Digest, and are
pleased to report that with the onset of electronic transfer of the
Digest copy, occurrences of editing corrections, especially the
insertion of page reference numbers, or transcript errors are
infrequent. Discussions with GPO continue regarding the inclusion of
on-line corrections.
Office Summation
The Daily Digest continues to consult on a daily basis with the
Senate Parliamentarians, Legislative, Executive, Journal, and Bill
Clerks, the Official Reporters of Debates, as well as the staffs of the
Policy Committees and other committee staffs, and is grateful for the
continued support from these offices.
4. enrolling clerk
The Enrolling Clerk prepares, proofreads, corrects, and prints all
Senate passed legislation prior to its transmittal to the House of
Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the
United States Claims Court, and the White House.
During 2005, 50 enrolled bills (transmitted to the President) and
11 concurrent resolutions (transmitted to Archives) were prepared,
printed, proofread, corrected, and printed on parchment.
A total of 624 additional pieces of legislation in one form or
another, were passed or agreed to by the Senate, requiring processing
from this office.
5. executive clerk
The Executive Clerk prepares an accurate record of actions taken by
the Senate during executive sessions (proceedings on nominations and
treaties) which is published as the Journal of the Executive
Proceedings of the Senate at the end of each session of Congress. The
Executive Clerk also prepares daily the Executive Calendar as well as
all nomination and treaty resolutions for transmittal to the President.
Additionally, the Executive Clerk's office processes all executive
communications, presidential messages and petitions and memorials.
Nominations
During the first session of the 109th Congress, there were 1,201
nomination messages sent to the Senate by the President, transmitting
27,686 nominations to positions requiring Senate confirmation and 18
messages withdrawing nominations sent to the Senate during the first
session of the 109th Congress. Of the total nominations transmitted,
511 were for civilian positions other than lists in the Foreign
Service, Coast Guard, NOAA, and Public Health Service. In addition,
there were 2,740 nominees in the ``civilian list'' categories named
above. Military nominations received this session totaled 24,435
(9,860--Air Force; 8,586--Army; 4,607--Navy and 1,382--Marine Corps).
The Senate confirmed 25,942 nominations this session. Pursuant to the
provisions of paragraph six of Senate Rule XXXI, 67 nominations were
returned to the President during the first session of the 109th
Congress.
Treaties
There were 8 treaties transmitted to the Senate by the President
during the first session of the 109th Congress for its advice and
consent to ratification, which were ordered printed as treaty documents
for the use of the Senate (Treaty Doc. 109-1 through 109-8). The Senate
gave its advice and consent to 6 treaties with various conditions,
declarations, understandings and provisos to the resolutions of advice
and consent to ratification.
Executive Reports and Roll Call Votes
There were 8 executive reports relating to treaties and a
nomination ordered printed for the use of the Senate during the first
session of the 109th Congress (Executive Report 109-1 through 109-8).
The Senate conducted 27 roll call votes in executive session, all on or
in relation to nominations and treaties.
During the year, the Sergeant at Arms' Systems Development Services
Branch worked with the Executive Clerk to make the Executive Calendar
more ``user friendly'' and also to further ongoing improvements to the
Legislative Information System pertaining to the processing of
nominations, treaties, executive communications, presidential messages
and petitions and memorials. Additionally, the SAA worked closely with
the Executive Clerk in the development of the new program for writing
and publishing the Journal of Executive Proceedings of the Senate each
session. The new program, now in use for the second session of the
109th Congress, will greatly improve the pace at which the Journal can
be developed and published each year.
Executive Communications
For the first session of the 109th Congress, 5,119 executive
communications, 253 petitions and memorials and 34 Presidential
messages were received and processed.
6. journal clerk
The Journal Clerk takes notes of the daily legislative proceedings
of the Senate in the ``Minute Book'' and prepares a history of bills
and resolutions for the printed Journal of the Proceedings of the
Senate, or Senate Journal, as required by Article I, Section V of the
Constitution. The Senate Journal is published each calendar year. In
2005, the Journal Clerk completed the production of the 867 page 2004
Senate Journal.
The Journal staff each take 90 minute turns at the rostrum in the
Senate Chamber, noting by hand for inclusion in the Minute Book (i) all
orders (entered into by the Senate through unanimous consent
agreements), (ii) legislative messages received from the President of
the United States, (iii) messages from the House of Representatives,
(iv) legislative actions as taken by the Senate (including motions made
by Senators, points of order raised, and roll call votes taken), (v)
amendments submitted and proposed for consideration, (vi) bills and
joint resolutions introduced, and (vii) concurrent and Senate
resolutions as submitted. These notes of the proceedings are then
compiled in electronic form for eventual publication at the end of each
calendar year in the Senate Journal.
The LIS Senate Journal Authoring System, first utilized by the
Journal Clerk to successfully compile the 2004 Journal (from start to
finish), continues to be updated as needed to further assist in the
efficiency of production; the 2005 Journal is expected to be sent to
the Government Printing Office for printing at the end of March.
7. legislative clerk
The Legislative Clerk sits at the Secretary's desk in the Senate
Chamber and reads aloud bills, amendments, the Senate Journal,
Presidential messages, and other such materials when so directed by the
Presiding Officer of the Senate. The Legislative Clerk calls the roll
of members to establish the presence of a quorum and to record and
tally all yea and nay votes. The office prepares the Senate Calendar of
Business, published each day that the Senate is in session, and
prepares additional publications relating to Senate class membership
and committee and subcommittee assignments. The Legislative Clerk
maintains the official copy of all measures pending before the Senate
and must incorporate into those measures any amendments that are agreed
to. This office retains custody of official messages received from the
House of Representatives and conference reports awaiting action by the
Senate.
The office is responsible for verifying the accuracy of information
entered into the Legislative Information System (LIS) by the various
offices of the Secretary. In an effort to monitor and improve the LIS,
the Legislative Clerk acts as the liaison between legislative clerks
and technical operations staff of the Sergeant at Arms. The Legislative
Clerk reviews, prioritizes, and forwards change requests from the
clerks to the technical operations staff. Over the past year, 30 change
requests submitted by the clerks to improve the system have been
implemented. Feedback from the Senate community regarding LIS continues
to be excellent.
Additionally, the Legislative Clerk is the Director of Legislative
Services, providing a single line of communication to the Assistant
Secretary and Secretary with responsibility for overall coordination,
supervision, scheduling, and cross-training.
Summary of Activity
The first session of the 109th Congress completed its legislative
business and adjourned sine die on December 22, 2005. During 2005, the
Senate was in session 159 days and conducted 366 roll call votes. There
were 286 measures reported from committees and 624 total measures
passed. In addition, there were 2,695 amendments processed.
Cross-Training
Recognizing the importance of planning for the continuity of Senate
business, under both normal and possibly extenuating circumstances,
cross-training is strongly emphasized among the Secretary's legislative
staff. To ensure additional staff is trained to perform the basic floor
responsibilities of the Legislative Clerk, as well as the various other
floor-related responsibilities of the Secretary, approximately 50
percent of the legislative staff is cross-trained.
Amendment Tracking System Expansion
The Senate's web-based application that allows users to access
images of Senate amendments proposed to legislation is called the
Amendment Tracking System (ATS). Developed in 1997 to provide the
Senate with online access to amendments, ATS provides legislative staff
with scanned images of the amendments, and descriptive information
about them, including their purpose, sponsor, cosponsors, submitted
date, proposed date, and status.
During this past year, the Secretary, through the Legislative
Clerk, Bill Clerk and Information Systems, spent many hours working
with the technical development staff of the Sergeant at Arms to give
the ATS a major overhaul. Some of the less visible changes, implemented
in March, included upgrades to the hardware and underlying software
programs.
In September, the scope of information available on ATS expanded to
include submitted amendments, those that have been submitted but have
not been proposed on the Senate floor. ATS also expanded the size of
amendment images from 25 to 50 pages, so users are now able to see up
to 50 pages of a submitted or proposed amendment. The Senate community
welcomed the ATS enhancement enthusiastically and feedback has been
very positive.
8. official reporters of debates
The official Reporters of Debates prepare and edit for publication
in the Congressional Record a substantially verbatim report of the
proceedings of the Senate, and serve as liaison for all Senate
personnel on matters relating to the content of the Record. The
transcript of proceedings, submitted statements and legislation is
transmitted in hard copy and electronically throughout the day to the
Government Printing Office (GPO).
The office works diligently to assure that the electronic
submissions to GPO are timely and efficient. The Official Reporters
encourage offices to make submissions to the Record by electronic
means, which results in both a tremendous cost saving to the Senate and
minimizes keyboard errors.
To enhance efficiency, the office provides guidelines on format for
the Congressional Record. These provide a helpful tool to assure an
accurate and timely printing of each day's Congressional Record.
9. parliamentarian
The Parliamentarian's Office continues to perform its essential
institutional responsibilities to act as a neutral arbiter among all
parties with an interest in the legislative process. These
responsibilities include advising the Chair, Senators and their staff,
as well as committee staff, House members and their staffs,
administration officials, the media and members of the general public,
on all matters requiring an interpretation of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the precedents of the Senate, unanimous consent agreements, as
well as provisions of public law affecting the proceedings of the
Senate.
The Parliamentarians work in close cooperation with the Senate
leadership and their floor staffs in coordinating all of the business
on the Senate floor. The Parliamentarian or one of his assistants is
always present on the Senate floor when the Senate is in session,
standing ready to assist the Presiding Officer in his or her official
duties, as well as to assist any other Senator on procedural matters.
The Parliamentarians work closely with the staff of the Vice President
of the United States and the Vice President himself whenever he
performs his duties as President of the Senate.
The Parliamentarians monitor all proceedings on the floor of the
Senate, advise the Presiding Officer on the competing rights of the
Senators on the floor, and advise all Senators as to what is
appropriate in debate. The Parliamentarians keep track of the
amendments offered to the legislation pending on the Senate floor, and
monitor them for points of order. The Parliamentarians reviewed more
than 1,000 amendments during 2005 to determine if they met various
procedural requirements, such as germaneness. The Parliamentarians also
reviewed thousands of pages of conference reports to determine what
provisions could appropriately be included therein.
The Office of the Parliamentarian is responsible for the referral
to the appropriate committees of all legislation introduced in the
Senate, all legislation received from the House, as well as all
communications received from the executive branch, state and local
governments, and private citizens. In order to perform this
responsibility, the Parliamentarians do extensive legal and legislative
research. During 2005, the Parliamentarian and his assistants referred
2,610 measures and 5,406 communications to the appropriate Senate
committees. The office worked extensively with Senators and their
staffs to advise them of the jurisdictional consequences of particular
drafts of legislation, and evaluated the jurisdictional effect of
proposed modifications in drafting. The office continues to address the
jurisdictional questions posed by the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, by the adoption of S. Res. 445, which reorganizes
intelligence and homeland security jurisdiction of the Senate's
committees, and by the enactment of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The Parliamentarians have made dozens
of decisions about the committee referrals of nominations for new
positions created in this department, nominations for positions which
existed before this department was created but whose responsibilities
have changed, and hundreds of legislative proposals concerning the
department's responsibilities.
During 2005, as has been the case in the past, the staff of the
Parliamentarian's Office was frequently called on to analyze and advise
Senators on a great number of issues arising under the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. An additional layer of procedural and budgetary
complexity was added this year, as this office was called upon to
advise on unique issues arising from the need to consider two different
reconciliation bills and several general appropriations bills in the
wake of the emergency brought about by Hurricane Katrina. The Senate
considered two separate budget reconciliation bills in 2005, including
the first spending reduction reconciliation bill in almost a decade.
Such bills present the Parliamentarian's Office with hundreds of
judgment calls in the analysis of complex and disparate legislation.
Additionally, in the last five years, rules relating to legislation
on appropriations bills, and the scope of conference reports on all
bills were reinstated. This has opened up hundreds of Senate amendments
to renewed scrutiny by the Parliamentarians, and has meant that the
Parliamentarians now have the responsibility of potentially reviewing
every provision of every conference report considered by both the House
and the Senate.
financial operations: disbursing office
disbursing office organization
The mission of the Senate Disbursing Office is to provide efficient
and effective central financial and human resource data management,
information and advice to the distributed, individually managed
offices, and to Members and employees of the United States Senate. To
accomplish this mission, the Senate Disbursing Office manages the
collection of information from the distributed accounting locations in
the Senate to formulate and consolidate the agency level budget,
disburse the payroll, pay the Senate's bills, prepare auditable
financial statements, and provide appropriate counseling and advice.
The Senate Disbursing Office collects information from Members and
employees that is necessary to maintain and administer the retirement,
health insurance, life insurance, and other central human resource
programs to provide responsive, personal attention to Members and
employees on a non-biased and confidential basis. The Senate Disbursing
Office also manages the distribution of central financial and human
resource information to the individual Member Offices, Committees, and
Administrative and Leadership offices in the Senate while maintaining
the appropriate control of information for the protection of individual
Members and Senate employees.
To support the mission of the Senate Disbursing Office, the
organization is structured in a manner that is intended to enhance its
ability to provide quality work, maintain a high level of customer
service, promote good internal controls, efficiency and teamwork, and
provide for the appropriate levels of supervision and management. The
long-term financial needs of the Senate are best served by an
organization staffed with highly trained professionals who possess a
high degree of institutional knowledge, sound judgment, and
interpersonal skills that reflect the unique nature of the United
States Senate.
deputy for benefits and financial services
The principal responsibility of this position is to provide
expertise on Federal retirement and benefits, payroll, and front office
processes. Coordination of the interaction between the Financial
Services, Employee Benefits, and Payroll sections is also a major
responsibility of the position, in addition to the planning and project
management of new computer systems and programs. The Deputy for
Benefits and Financial Services ensures that job processes are
efficient and up to date, modifies computer support systems, implements
regulatory and legislated changes, and designs and produces forms for
use in all three sections.
After year end processing of payroll for the calendar year 2004, a
few minor alterations to the new version of the payroll system were
made, and enhancements to the COLA process were smoothly completed. W-
2s were issued promptly and were immediately available on the Imaging
system.
Starting in February, enhancements to the Document Imaging System
began and updates to the system, including the ability to e-mail images
to other agencies and to rearrange documents within folders, were
added. Back up and storage processes for document images continue to be
refined. Existing Disaster Recovery efforts continue to be improved to
provide easy access to this important data. All microfilm records from
the Benefits/Payroll side of the Office were imaged and by the end of
the year, there was no longer a need to use microfilm.
During April, the qualified lender certification process, part of
the Student Loan Repayment Program, was modified. The main drawback
encountered was to authorize a Disbursing representative to talk with
the staff member's loan servicer, and the verification of the loan
particulars by a follow up call to the lender. The new process requires
the staff member to get a standard form completed by their lender and
submit it with their paperwork. This removed a tremendous number of
phone calls to and from lenders, the Office, and staff members and has
greatly expedited the process. It also allowed the process to be
handled on a rotating basis by a payroll specialist.
During the year many reports used by the Employee Benefits Section
were examined and updated to reflect new reporting requirements and to
enhance system support. One new form was produced for the Termination
Log, which tracks all employees who left the Senate during the previous
payroll period. Now, all required forms for terminating employees are
produced by our payroll system.
The Senate warehouse project is nearing completion as the process
of transitioning materials is in its final phase. For many years,
Disbursing files were stored in two Senate off-site locations, due to
space limitations. All Disbursing files in both off-site warehouses
were examined, organized, placed on pallets, and numbered in
preparation for the move to the new warehouse. The numbers of pallets
requiring storage room were confirmed, and over 70 file cabinets
holding historical personnel and office records were prepared for the
move in early December 2005. An enclosed, secure and environmentally
controlled area was provided for personnel files and 6 new revolving
vertical storage file cabinets were prepared for the site. The cabinets
will hold all current files and provide ample space for growth.
Additional space for 100 pallets was also provided in the new warehouse
which should fulfill Disbursing's storage needs for many years.
front counter--administrative and financial services
The Front Counter is the main service area of all general Senate
business and financial activity. The Front Counter maintains the
Senate's internal accountability of funds used in daily operations.
Reconciliation of such funds is executed on a daily basis. The Front
Counter provides training to newly authorized payroll contacts along
with continuing guidance to all contacts in the execution of business
operations. It is the receiving point for most incoming expense
vouchers, payroll actions, and employee benefits related forms, and is
the initial verification point to ensure that paperwork received in the
Disbursing Office conforms to all applicable Senate rules, regulations,
and statutes. The Front Counter is the first line of service provided
to Senate Members, Officers, and employees. All new Senate employees
(permanent and temporary) who will work in the Capitol Hill Senate
offices are administered the required oath of office and personnel
affidavit and provided verbal and written detailed information
regarding their pay and benefits. Authorization is certified to new and
state employees for issuance of their Senate I.D. card. Advances are
issued to Senate staff authorized for an advance for official Senate
travel. Cash and check advances are entered and reconciled in the Funds
Advance Tracking System (FATS). Repayment of travel advances is
executed after processing of certified expenses is complete. Travelers
Checks are available on a non-profit basis to assist the traveler.
Numerous inquiries are handled daily, ranging from pay, benefits,
taxes, voucher processing, reporting, laws, and Senate regulations, and
must always be answered accurately and fully to provide the highest
degree of customer service. Cash and checks received from Senate
entities as part of their daily business are handled through the Front
Counter and become part of the Senate's accountability of federally
appropriated funds and are then processed through the Senate's general
ledger system.
General Activities
The Front Counter processed approximately 2,200 cash advances,
totaling approximately $1.1 million and initialized 710 check/direct
deposit advances, totaling approximately $709,000.
Received and processed more than 28,000 checks, totaling over
$3,000,000.
Administered Oath and Personnel Affidavits to more than 3,000 new
Senate staff and advised them of their benefits.
Maintained brochures for 10 Federal health carriers and distributed
approximately 3,500 brochures to new and existing staff during the
annual FEHB Open Season.
Provided 25 training sessions to new Administrative Managers.
The Front Office operations continued the daily reconciliation of
operations and strengthened internal office controls. Training and
guidance to new Administrative Managers and business contacts
continued, as well as the incorporation of updates of the scanning and
imaging project into daily operations. A major emphasis was placed on
assisting employees in maximizing their Thrift Savings Plan
contributions and making them aware of the Thrift Savings Plan catch up
program when applicable. Front Office operations continued to provide
the Senate community with prompt, courteous, and informative advice
regarding Disbursing operations.
payroll section
The Payroll Section maintains the Human Resources Management System
(HRMS) and is responsible for the processing, verifying, and
warehousing all payroll information submitted to the Disbursing Office
by Senators for their personal staff, by Chairmen for their committee
staff, and by other elected officials for their staff; issuing salary
payments to the above employees; rectifying returns of student loan
allowance payments, jointly maintaining the Automated Clearing House
(ACH) FEDLINE facilities with the Accounts Payable Section for the
normal transmittal of payroll deposits to the Federal Reserve;
distributing the appropriate payroll expenditure and allowance reports
to the individual offices; issuing the proper withholding and agency
contributions reports to the Accounting Department; and transmitting
the proper Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) information to the National
Finance Center (NFC), while maintaining earnings records for
distribution to the Social Security Administration, and maintaining
employees' taxable earnings records for W-2 statements. The Payroll
Section is also responsible for the payroll expenditure data portion of
the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
General Activities
The Payroll Section processed a January 1, 2006 cost of living
increase of 3.44 percent. The Payroll Section maintained the normal
schedule of processing TSP open season forms. Employees took full
advantage of the increase of TSP deductions making the most of the new
$15,000 maximum. For those employees over 50 years of age, the TSP
catch-up programs provided them with an opportunity to make additional
contributions in excess of the standard program.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave members of the Payroll
Section the opportunity to work directly with TSP employees as their
COOP facility was located in the Virginia suburbs. Several visits were
made to the site to ensure the deductions for employees of the Senate
were properly applied, and to receive training on their Web based
processing system.
The Student Loan Program, Flexible Spending Accounts, and Long Term
Care account processing continues. The office continues to refine and
improve processes in working with third party contractors. In addition,
the elections of 2004 presented the section with the task of opening
and closing nine offices plus the monitoring of S. Res. 9 payrolls
during the first 6 months of 2005.
The Payroll Section again participated in the December disaster
recovery testing. This year's test entailed using the ACF processing
equipment to operate the payroll/personnel system from the Hart
Building while SAA programmers ran trial payrolls from dial up sources.
Part of the test was for members of SAA Production Services to produce
the payroll output from printers located at the ACF. During the
holidays, members of the Payroll Section conducted another test of the
payroll personnel system by processing over 400 salary changes through
dial up from a laptop computer. The payroll personnel system test
proved that it could be run from many locations at the same time.
employee benefits section
The primary responsibilities of the Employee Benefits Section (EBS)
are administration of health insurance, life insurance and all
retirement programs for Members and employees of the Senate. This
includes counseling, processing of paperwork, research, dissemination
of information and interpretation of retirement and benefits laws and
regulations. In addition, the sectional work includes research and
verification of all prior federal service and prior Senate service for
new and returning appointees. EBS provides this information for payroll
input, and once Official Personnel Folders and Transcripts of Service
are received, verifies the accuracy of the information provided and
reconciles as necessary. Transcripts of Service, including all official
retirement and benefits documentation, are provided to other federal
agencies when Senate Members and staff are hired elsewhere in the
government. EBS processes employment verifications for loans, the Bar
Exam, the FBI, OPM, and DOD, among others. Unemployment claim forms are
completed, and employees are counseled on their eligibility. Department
of Labor billings for unemployment compensation paid to Senate
employees are reviewed in EBS and submitted by voucher to the
Accounting Section for payment, as are the employee fees associated
with the Flexible Spending Accounts. Designations of Beneficiary for
FEGLI, CSRS, FERS, and unpaid compensation are filed and checked by
EBS.
General Activities
The year began with EBS finalizing retirement estimates and
processing the many retirement cases associated with the outgoing
Senators and their staffs, as well as committee staff affected by the
changes. Approximately 150 retirement cases were processed throughout
2005.
There was a great deal of employee turnover in early 2005. New
Members appointed numerous employees from the House and Executive
Branch, and many other employees left with their outgoing Members, many
of whom were appointed to positions in the Executive Branch. This
caused a dramatic increase in appointments to be researched and
processed, retirement records to be closed out, termination packages of
benefits information to be compiled and mailed out, and health
insurance enrollments to be processed. Transcripts of service for
employees going to other federal agencies, and other tasks associated
with employees changing jobs were at a high level this year. These
required prior employment research and verification, new FEHB, FEGLI,
FSA, CSRS, FERS and TSP enrollments, and the associated requests for
backup verification.
The 2004 OPM FEGLI Open Season (OS) elections took effect September
1, 2005. EBS verified and processed all OS elections and provided
reminder notifications and guidance to those affected. Approximately
350 Senate employee FEGLI changes were processed.
Interagency meetings attended involved time spent on the
development and understanding of the new Vision and Dental (V&D)
programs that will surface in late 2006 and the new Voluntary Benefits
Portal that is in development under the direction of Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) to combine third-party administration of
FSA, LTCI and the new V&D programs. Information was also shared on the
implementation of the FEGLI Open Season enrollments. Interaction and
cooperation were essential in the continuing operations of the New
Orleans-based Thrift Savings Plan and the National Finance Center in
the wake of Hurricane Katrina. EBS did as much as possible to provide
assistance and information to Senate staff that would normally be
provided by TSP.
The annual FEHB Open Season was held and approximately 500
employees changed plans. These changes were processed and reported to
carriers in record time. Once again, the on-line Checkbook Guide to
Health Plans was made available to Senate employees to research and
compare FEHB plans. This tool will remain available to staff throughout
the year. Additional effort was made to increase employee awareness and
understanding of this valuable tool, and feedback is positive. The FEHB
Open Season Health Fair was also attended by about 600 employees and as
an additional service, it was open to all other federal employees on
the Hill, including House, Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol and
Senate Restaurant employees. In addition to having health plan
representatives available to provide information and answer questions,
representatives from FSA Feds and Long Term Care Insurance were also in
attendance.
Much effort was made in coordination with the Senate Computer
Center to effect computer enhancements and provide additional automated
forms to our database. This has provided greater efficiency and
increased accuracy of information.
EBS continues to work with our File Room personnel to modify our
procedures and the flow of forms to maintain imaged documentation with
COOP preparedness in mind. For COOP readiness with respect to employee
personnel folder access, the goal for 2006 is to explore alternatives
to complete the scanning of all ``prior'' employee personnel folder
documents that are housed in the Disbursing file room.
Educational seminars were held for the Civil Service Retirement
System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. These seminars for
staff were well attended and well received.
Due to the continued boom in the housing market, employment
verifications came in at a rapid pace, averaging over 100 per month.
Unemployment verifications were especially high early in the year and
remained constant throughout the year. Telephone inquiries, though not
specifically tracked, continued at high levels.
disbursing office financial management
Headed by the Deputy for Financial Management, the mission of
Disbursing Office Financial Management (DOFM) is to coordinate all
central financial policies, procedures, and activities, to process and
pay expense vouchers within reasonable time frames, to work toward
producing an auditable consolidated financial statement for the Senate
and to provide professional customer service, training and confidential
financial guidance to all Senate accounting locations. In addition, the
Financial Management group is responsible for the compilation of the
annual operating budget of the United States Senate for presentation to
the Committee on Appropriations as well as for the formulation,
presentation and execution of the budget for the Senate. On a
semiannual basis, this group is also responsible for the compilation,
validation and completion of the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.
DOFM is segmented into three functional departments: Accounting,
Accounts Payable, and Budget. The Accounts Payable Department is
subdivided into three sections: the Audit group, the Disbursement group
and the Vendor/SAVI group. The Deputy coordinates the activities of the
three functional departments, establishes central financial policies
and procedures, acts as the primary liaison to Human Resources, and
carries out the directives of the Financial Clerk and the Secretary of
the Senate.
accounting department
During fiscal year 2005, the Accounting Department approved nearly
47,800 expense reimbursement vouchers, processed 1,300 deposits for
items ranging from receipts received by the Senate operations, such as
the Senate's Revolving Funds, to canceled subscription refunds from
Member offices. General ledger maintenance also prompted the entry of
thousands of adjustment entries that include the entry of all
appropriation and allowance funding limitation transactions, all
accounting cycle closing entries, and all non-voucher reimbursement
transactions such as payroll adjustments, COLA (cost of living) budget
uploads, stop payment requests, travel advances and repayments, and
limited payability reimbursements.
This year the Accounting Department assisted in the validation of
various system upgrades and modifications, including the testing
required to implement Web Release 10.0, an upgrade to the mainframe
operating system to Z/OS, and the testing of last non-zero balance date
to fix process control. During January 2005, the Accounting Department
with assistance from a contractor, Bearing Point, completed the 2004
year-end process to close and reset revenue, expense and budgetary
general ledger accounts to zero. During June 2005, we successfully
tested and implemented in Federal FAMIS another document purge
including the archiving of Web report data for lapsed years. Further,
toward the end of the fiscal year, the financial file rollover was
performed to update FAMIS' tables and create the new index codes needed
to accommodate data for fiscal year 2006.
The Department of the Treasury's monthly financial reporting
requirements includes a Statement of Accountability that details all
increases and decreases to the accountability of the Secretary of the
Senate, such as checks issued during the month and deposits received,
as well as a detailed listing of cash on hand. Also, on a monthly
basis, reported to the Department of the Treasury is the Statement of
Transactions According to Appropriations, Fund and Receipt Accounts
that summarizes all activity at the appropriation level of all monies
disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate through the Financial Clerk of
the Senate. All activity by appropriation account is reconciled with
the Department of the Treasury on a monthly and annual basis. The
annual reconciliation of the Treasury Combined Statement is also used
in the reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part
of the submission of the annual operating budget of the Senate.
This year, the Accounting Department transmitted all Federal tax
payments for Federal, Social Security, and Medicare taxes withheld from
payroll expenditures, as well as the Senate's matching contribution for
Social Security and Medicare, to the Federal Reserve Bank. The
Department also performed quarterly reporting to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) and annual reporting and reconciliation to the IRS and
the Social Security Administration. Payments for employee withholdings
for state income taxes were reported and paid on a quarterly basis to
each state with applicable state income taxes withheld. Monthly
reconciliations were performed with the National Finance Center
regarding the employee withholdings and agency matching contributions
for the Thrift Savings Plan.
In addition to Treasury's external reporting deadlines, there are
internal reporting requirements such as the monthly ledger statements
for all Member offices and all other offices with payroll and non-
payroll expenditures. These ledger statements detail all of the
financial activity for the appropriate accounting period with regard to
official expenditures in detail and summary form. Each month, the
Accounting Department reviews and verifies the accuracy of the
statements before distribution is made.
The Accounting Department, in conjunction with the Deputy for
Financial Management, continues to work closely with the Sergeant at
Arms Finance Department in completing the corrective actions that were
identified during our pro-forma financial statements' audit ability
assessment. Based on the results of this exercise, 23 corrective
actions were suggested including an action plan and proposed schedule
to have them corrected. Some of the actions were rather simple to
implement while others will take significantly longer. Of the 23
corrective actions noted, 18 have been completed and 5 are still in
process. As part of this project, the Accounting Group is working with
the SAA in reconciling FAMIS entries to Asset Center. The Accounting
Group also finalized clearing all CASHLINK outstanding items.
As part of the financial statement initiative, the accounting group
has worked on the validation of the Senate's pro-forma financial
statements for fiscal year 2004. The validation of the statements of
financial position, net costs and changes in net position for fiscal
year 2004 is complete. Work is still underway on the last two
statements--budgetary resources and finance--and is expected to be
completed by the end of March. At that time, work on the fiscal year
2005 statements will begin.
Toward the end of the calendar year, in coordination with SAA
staff, the Chief Accountant and the Deputy for Financial Management
participated in successful testing of our disaster recovery facility.
accounts payable
vendor/savi section
Created in 2003, the Vendor/SAVI section is responsible for
maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the Senate's central vendor
(payee) file, for the prompt completion of new vendor file requests,
and service requests related to the Office's web-based payment tracking
system known as SAVI. This section also assists the IT Department
performing periodic testing and monitoring of the performance of the
SAVI system.
Currently, there are more than 13,400 vendor records stored in the
vendor file. Daily requests for new vendor addresses or updates to
existing vendor information are processed within 24 hours of being
received. In 2004, the A/P Department began to pay vendors
electronically via the Automated Clearing House (ACH). Besides updating
mailing addresses, the Vendor/SAVI section facilitates the use of ACH
by switching the method of payment requested by the vendor from check
to ACH. Whenever a new remittance address is added to the vendor file,
a standard letter is mailed to our vendors requesting tax and banking
information. Currently, more than 1,250 vendors and over half of the
state offices' landlords are being paid by ACH.
As stated earlier, SAVI is Disbursing's web-based payment tracking
system. Senate staff may electronically create, save, and file expense
reimbursement forms, track their progress, and receive detailed
information on payments made. The most common service requests are
those for system user ids, system passwords and to activate deactivated
accounts; less common but more complicated are employee requests for an
alternative expense payment method. An employee can choose to have
their payroll set up for direct deposit but may have their expenses
reimbursed by paper check.
The Vendor/SAVI section works closely with the A/P disbursements
group resolving returned EFT issues. EFT payments are returned
periodically for a variety of reasons. The reasons given have included
incorrect account numbers, incorrect ABA routing numbers, and, in rare
instances, a nonparticipating financial institution. Most EFT return
issues are easy to resolve; however, there are some instances that
result with a vendor being converted back to paper check payments.
Currently, there are no unresolved returned EFT issues.
The Vendor/SAVI section continues to electronically scan and store
supporting documentation of vendor file requests. Currently, with
assistance from the Disbursement Group, over 5,000 vendors have been
electronically scanned and the paper files certified for destruction.
In the near future, this section will assist the IT Department in
testing an automatic e-mail notification system which will alert
vendors when an EFT payment has been made and will provide pertinent
payment information.
This year, the Vendor/SAVI section processed over 2,700 vendor file
requests, completed nearly 2,200 SAVI service requests and mailed over
1,400 vendor information letters.
accounts payable
disbursements department
Well over 120,000 expense claims were received and processed by the
department in 2005. More than 32,500 expense checks were written and
approximately 56,500 direct deposit reimbursements were transmitted.
The department has experienced a small decline of roughly 7 percent in
the number of checks written and a slightly larger increase of 13
percent in the number of ACH payments, and it is expected that this
trend will continue. The department suffered no performance loss,
ensuring that all vendors and employees continued to receive timely and
accurate payments.
After vouchers are paid, they are sorted and filed by document
number. Vouchers are grouped in 6-month ``clusters'' to accommodate
their retrieval for the semi-annual Report of the Secretary of the
Senate. Files are maintained for the current period and two prior
periods in-house as space is limited. Older documents are stored at the
warehouse facility.
A major function of the department is to prepare adjustment
documents. Adjustments are varied and include the following:
preparation of foreign travel advances and vouchers, reimbursements for
expenses incurred by Senate Leadership, re-issuance of items held as
accounts receivable collections, re-issuance of payments for which non-
receipt is claimed, and various supplemental adjustments received from
the Payroll Department. Such adjustments are usually disbursed by
check, but an increasing number are now handled electronically via ACH
as more vendors and employees opt for this payment method.
The Disbursements Department is also responsible for researching
returned checks as vendors request additional information relating to
payment allocation. Fortunately, few checks are returned. This is a
result of the use of a centralized vendor file and accurate
certification of payments. There are currently no unresolved returned
check issues.
During 2005, an increasing number of ACH items were returned for
reasons ranging from erroneous account information to non-participation
by depositing banks. Some of the returns were simply notices of change
while others were rejected outright. Procedures were established which
created a liaison with the Vendor/SAVI group, Payroll, and Accounting.
Corrections are forwarded to the Vendor/SAVI group so the corrections
may be made in the vendor file. Corrections involving payroll are
forwarded to that department. Such corrections are downloaded into the
vendor file for nightly processing.
All rejected items are logged into an ACH Reports folder in Excel.
They are classified as either Payroll or Accounts Payable, and the
actual daily reports are also scanned into the folder. Once logged in,
the payroll items are forwarded to the Payroll Department, and the non-
payroll items are forwarded to Vendor/SAVI for appropriate corrective
action. Corrective actions include correction of erroneous data and
retransmission, or sometimes re-issuance by paper check. Once the
corrective action is determined, an accounting memo is drafted and
given to Disbursements and the appropriate action is taken. The Excel
spreadsheet contains details of the return as well as information
relating to the corrective action taken. Accounting then uses the
information contained in the spreadsheet to assist them in reconciling
CASHLINK with the Treasury.
The Accounts Payable Disbursements Department prepares mailing
labels for the distribution of the monthly ledgers to the 140
accounting locations throughout the Senate. Although the ledgers are
sorted and sent out by Accounting, the Disbursements Group maintains
the file of how and where the statements are to be delivered. This
information is transferred to mailing labels, placed on manila
envelopes, and given to Accounting. Offices expressing no preference
have their statements sent to their respective offices marked
``Personal and Confidential.'' The main objective of this process is to
have each office receive their ledger statements for the month just
ended by the 10th of the following month.
The Department also prepares the forms required by the Department
of Treasury for stop payments. Stop payments are requested by employees
who have not received salary or expense reimbursements, and vendors
claiming non-receipt of expense checks. During this year, the A/P
Disbursement Supervisor and the Accounts Payable Manager continued
using the Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS)
online stop pay and check retrieval process known as PACER. The PACER
system allows us to electronically submit stop-payment requests and
provides on-line access to digital images of negotiated checks for
viewing and printing. Once a check is viewed, it is printed and may be
scanned. Scanned images are then forwarded to the appropriate
accounting locations via e-mail. This process has been well received by
Senate offices and vendors. This saves time and significantly reduces
reliance on the postal system. Accounts Payable Disbursements staff
have Treasury secure ID cards and are trained in the use of PACER.
Given the time and money savings, as well as the overwhelmingly
positive reception, large growth in the use of PACER for check
retrieval purposes is anticipated.
The Disbursements Department continues the use of laser checks. The
tractor-fed check writer system has been dismantled and a new, improved
system was developed and implemented. The previously ordered folder/
inserter was purchased and has been installed. In addition to the new
folder/inserter, the replacement was comprehensive in scope. New
hardware was introduced and further check writer upgrades are scheduled
for 2006. The result is a user friendly system which has the additional
benefits of greater security and higher degree of accuracy. Only
certain key personnel have access to the signature fonts which are
specific to each individual, and print quality has been significantly
improved.
Work continues on the reconciliation of the replacement check
account. A team was formed consisting of the Deputy for Financial
Management, Accounts Payable Manager, Chief Accountant, Accounts
Payable Disbursements Supervisor and Staff Accountants. Persistent and
determined revenue collection procedures have resulted in the
elimination of all but one unresolved item.
accounts payable
audit department
The Accounts Payable Audit Section is responsible for auditing
vouchers and answering questions regarding voucher preparation and the
permissibility of expenses and advances. This section provides advice
and recommendations on the discretionary use of funds to the various
accounting locations, identifies duplicate payments submitted by
offices, monitors payments related to contracts, trains Administrative
Managers and Chief Clerks about Senate financial practices, trains
Administrative Managers in the use of the Senate's Financial Management
Information System, and assists in the production of the Report of the
Secretary of the Senate.
A major function of the Section is to monitor the Fund Advance
Tracking System (FATS) to ensure that advances are charged correctly,
vouchers repaying such advances are entered, and balances are adjusted
for reuse of the advance funds. An ``aging'' process is also performed
to ensure that travel advances are repaid in the time specified by the
advance travel regulations. Travel advances may be repaid via regular
voucher processing, or may be canceled if the corresponding travel is
not taken.
The Accounts Payable Audit Section, currently a group of 13, has
the responsibility for the daily processing of expense claims submitted
by the 140 accounting locations of the Senate. The section processed in
excess of 145,000 expense vouchers in fiscal year 2005, as well as
23,000 uploaded items. The voucher processing ranged in scope from
providing interpretation of Senate rules, regulations and statute,
applying the same to expense claims, monitoring of contracts and direct
involvement with the Senate's central vendor file. On average, vouchers
greater than $100 that do not have any issues or questions are
received, audited, sanctioned by Rules and paid by Disbursing within 10
business days of receipt.
Uploaded items are of two varieties, certified expenses and vendor
payments. Certified expenses include items such as stationery,
telecommunications, postage, and equipment. Charges incurred by the
various Senate offices are certified to Disbursing on a monthly basis.
As an example, the Keeper of Stationery tracks all expenditures for
each office, and sends a voucher certifying the expenses incurred over
the previous month. The expenses are detailed on a spreadsheet which is
also electronically uploaded. The physical voucher is audited and
appropriate revisions are made. The revisions are transferred into the
uploaded spreadsheet which is then used to effect payment to the
Keeper. Concentrated effort is put forth to ensure certified items
appear as paid in the same month they are incurred.
Vendor uploads are fairly new, and are used to pay vendors for the
Stationery Room, Senate Gift Shop, State office rentals, and refunds of
security deposits for the Page School. The methodology is roughly the
same as for certifications, but the payments rendered are for the
individual vendors. Although these items are generally processed and
paid quickly, the State Office rents are generally paid a few days
prior to the month of the rental in keeping with a general policy of
paying rent in advance.
During fiscal year 2004, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and
Administration increased the delegated sanctioning authority for
vouchers from $35 or less to $100 or less. These vouchers comprise
approximately 60 percent of all vouchers processed. The responsibility
for sanctioning rests with the Certifying Accounts Payable Specialists
and are received, audited, and paid within 5 business days of receipt.
Disbursing passed two post-payment audits performed by the Rules
Committee.
The Accounts Payable Audit Group provided training sessions in the
use of new systems, the process for generation of expense claims, the
permissibility of an expense, and participated with seminars sponsored
by the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Library
of Congress. The Section trained 14 new Administrative Managers and
Chief Clerks and conducted 5 informational sessions for Senate staff
through seminars sponsored by the Congressional Research Service. The
Accounts Payable group also routinely assists the IT department and
other groups as necessary in the testing and implementation of the new
hardware, software, and system applications. Web FMIS version 9 was in
use for most of the year with the electronic, importable expense
summary report (ESR). The electronic ESR has gained widespread
acceptance and Web FMIS version 10 was installed in September.
Extensive testing is anticipated for the release of Web FMIS version
10.3 in fiscal year 2006.
A cancellation process was established for advances in 2004. This
was necessary to ensure repayment of advances systematically for
canceled or postponed travel in accordance with Senate travel
regulations. Advance procedures including cancellation were formally
incorporated into the Policies and Procedures Manual. Although
procedures are in place, enhancement is necessary and is expected in a
later release of Web FMIS. Cancellation of other Web vouchers is also
scheduled for testing during a later system release. The A/P sections
within the Polices and Procedures Manual continue to be updated and
revised as new policies, regulations, and system functionality
enhancements dictate.
budget department
The third component of the Disbursing Office Financial Management
Group is the Budget Department. The primary responsibility of the
Budget Department is to compile the annual operating budget of the
United States Senate for presentation to the Committee on
Appropriations. The Budget Department is responsible for the
preparation, issuance and distribution of the budget justification
worksheets (BJW). In fiscal year 2005, the budget justification
worksheets were processed in December. The budget baseline estimates
for fiscal year 2006 were reported to the Office of Management and
Budget in January.
This department is also responsible for the formulation,
presentation and execution of the budget for the Senate and provides a
wide range of analytical, technical and advisory functions related to
the budget process. The Budget Department acts as the Budget Officer
for the Office of the Secretary, assisting in the preparation of
testimony for the hearings before the Committee on Appropriations and
the Committee on Rules and Administration.
During January, the Senate Budget Analyst is responsible for the
preparation of 1099's and the prompt submission of forms to the IRS
before the end of the month.
disbursing office information technology
financial management information system
The Disbursing Office Information Technology (IT) Department
provides both functional and technical assistance for all Senate
financial management activities. Activities revolve around support of
the Senate's Financial Management Information System (FMIS) which is
used by approximately 140 Senate accounting locations (i.e., 100
Senator's offices, 20 Committees, 20 Leadership and Support offices,
the Rules Committee Audit section, and the Disbursing Office).
Responsibilities include:
--Supporting current systems;
--Testing infrastructure changes;
--Managing and testing new system development;
--Planning;
--Managing the FMIS project, including contract management;
--Administering the Disbursing Office's Local Area Network (LAN); and
--Coordinating the Disbursing Office's disaster recovery activities.
Work during 2005 was supported by the Sergeant at Arms Technology
Services staff, the Secretary's Information Technology staff, and
contracts with Bearing Point.
The SAA Technology Services staff provides the technical
infrastructure, including hardware (mainframe and servers), operating
system software (mainframe and servers), database software, and
telecommunications; technical assistance for these components,
including migration management, and database administration; and
regular batch processing. Bearing Point is responsible, under the
contract with the SAA, for operational support, and under contract with
the Secretary, for application development. The Disbursing Office is
the ``business owner'' of FMIS and is responsible for making the
functional decisions about FMIS. The three organizations work
cooperatively.
Highlights of the year include:
--Implementation of six releases of Web FMIS. Combined, these
releases took FMIS to the ``zero-client'' platform, an
important milestone in providing this critical system in a
disaster situation. By the end of April 2005 all Web FMIS users
were using the intranet version of Web FMIS;
--Implementation of a release of SAVI that enables Macintosh computer
users to use this system;
--Support of the Rules Committee's post payment audit for the Rules
Committee Audit to conduct a statistically valid sample of
vouchers of $100 and under for which sanctioning was delegated
to the Financial Clerk;
--Upgrading our e-mail to ``Active Directory'';
--Coordinating and participating in the FMIS portion of a disaster
recovery exercise for the Alternate Computing Facility; and
--Conducting monthly classes and seminars on Web FMIS.
FMIS is not a single computer system. It is composed of many
subsystems that provide Senate-specific functionality. These subsystems
are outlined in the table that begins on the following page.
SENATE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsystem Functionality Source Primary Users Implementation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMIS (Mainframe)............ General ledger.......................... Off the shelf federal system Disbursing Office......... October 1998
Vendor file purchased from Bearing Point.
Administrative functions
Security functions
ADPICS (Mainframe)........... Preparation of requisition, purchase Off the shelf federal system Sergeant at Arms.......... October 1998
order, voucher from purchase order, and purchased from Bearing Point. Disbursing Office
direct voucher documents. Secretary of the Senate
Electronic document review functions
Administrative functions
Checkwriter (Client-server).. Prints checks and check registers as Off the shelf state government Disbursing Office......... October 1998
well as ACH (Automated Clearing House) system purchased from and
direct deposit transmission payments. adapted to Senate's requirements
by Bearing Point.
Web FMIS (Intranet).......... Preparation of vouchers, travel Custom software developed under All Senators' offices..... October 1999
advances, vouchers from advance Senate contract by Bearing Point. All Committee offices Client Server
documents, credit documents and simple All Leadership and Support August 2004
commitment and obligation documents. offices Intranet
Entry of detailed budget Secretary of the Senate
Reporting functions (described below) Sergeant at Arms
Electronic document submission and Disbursing Office
review functions
Administrative functions
FATS (PC-based).............. Tracks travel advances and petty cash Developed by SAA Technology Serv- Disbursing Office......... Spring 1983
advances (available to Committees only). ices.
Tracks election cycle information
Post Payment Voucher Audit Selects a random sample of vouchers for Excel spreadsheet developed by Rules Committee........... Spring 2003
(PC-based). which sanctioning was delegated to the Bearing Point. Disbursing Office
Financial Clerk for the Rules Committee
to use in conducting a post payment
audit.
SAVI (Intranet).............. As currently implemented, provides self- Off the shelf system purchased Senate employees.......... Pilot--Spring
service access (via the Senate's from Bearing Point. 2002
intranet) to payment information for Senate-wide July
employees receiving reimbursements. 2002
Administrative functions
Online ESR (Intranet)........ A component of SAVI through which Senate Custom software developed under Senate employees.......... April 2003
employees can create on-line Travel/Non- contract by Bearing Point.
Travel Expense Summary Reports and
submit them electronically to the
Administrative Manager/Chief Clerk for
processing.
Secretary's Report (Mainframe Produces the Report of the Secretary of Custom software developed under Disbursing Office......... Spring 1999
extracts, crystal reports, the Senate. contract by Bearing Point.
and client-server ``tool
box'').
Ledger Statements (Mainframe Produces monthly reports from FAMIS that Developed by SAA Technology Serv- Disbursing Office......... Winter 1999
database extracts, and are sent to all Senate ``accounting ices. Senate Accounting
crystal reports). locations''. Locations
Web FMIS Reports (mainframe Produces a large number of reports from Custom software developed under Senate Accounting October 1999--
database extracts, crystal Web FMIS, FAMIS and ADPICS data at contract by Bearing Point. Locations. Client Server
reports, and Intranet). summary and detailed levels. Data is April 2005--
updated as an overnight process and can Intranet
be updated through an on-line process
by accounting locations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting Current Systems
The IT section supports FMIS users in all 140 accounting locations,
the Disbursing Office Accounts Payable, Accounting, Disbursements and
Front Office Sections, and the Rules Committee Audit staff. The
activities associated with this responsibility include:
--User support--provide functional and technical support to all
Senate FMIS users; staff the FMIS ``help desk''; and meet with
Chiefs of Staff, Administrative Managers, Chief Clerks, and
various Senate offices as requested;
--Technical problem resolution--ensure that technical problems are
resolved;
--Monitor system performance--check system availability and
statistics to identify system problems and coordinate
performance tuning activities for parallel load and database
access optimization;
--Security--maintains user rights for all ADPICS, FAMIS, SAVI, and
Web FMIS users;
--System administration--design, test and make entries to tables that
are intrinsic to the system;
--Support of Accounting Activities--provide assistance in the cyclic
accounting system activities such as rollover, the process by
which tables for the new fiscal year are created, and archiving
and purging for the current year tables data for lapsed fiscal
years;
--Support the Rules Committee post payment voucher audit process; and
--Training--provide functional training to all Senate FMIS users.
Of these, the post payment voucher audit deserves recognition. In
December of 2002, the Rules Committee delegated to the Financial Clerk
the authority for sanctioning vouchers of $35 and less; effective
January 1, 2004 this threshold increased to $100. The authorization
directed Rules and Disbursing to establish a set of procedures for a
semi-annual audit of these vouchers. The two offices agreed that Rules
would conduct a random sampling inspection of these vouchers based on
industry statistical standards. Under the supervision of the IT Group,
Bearing Point created tools to determine the sample size, to enable
selecting the sample from the universe of vouchers of $100 and less,
and to determine the acceptable number of discrepancies given the
sample size and the desired confidence interval. Both audits conducted
in 2005 resulted in a favorable finding of zero discrepancies. The
audit conducted in April 2005 for the six-month period ending March 31,
2005, covered 24,643 vouchers and the audit conducted in October 2005
for the six-month period ending September 30, 2005, covered 29,013
vouchers, an overall increase of 21 percent in the number of vouchers
of $100 and less that were processed during fiscal year 2005.
Testing Infrastructure Changes
The SAA provides the infrastructure on which FMIS operates,
including the mainframe, the database, security hardware and software,
the telecommunications network, and a hardware and software
installation crew. During 2005 the mainframe operating system was
upgraded to the Z/OS operating system. This required that the
Disbursing Office test all FMIS subsystems in a testing environment and
verify all FMIS subsystems in the production environment after Z/OS was
implemented.
Managing and Testing New System Development
During 2005, we supervised development, performed extensive
integration system testing and implemented changes to the following
FMIS subsystems: Web FMIS; Senate Vendor Information (SAVI) and Online
ESR; and Checkwriter.
Web FMIS
Over the last two years, updates and simplification of the
underlying technology of Web FMIS has occurred, basically replacing all
Visual Basic Client/Server and Cold Fusion Web technology with
WebSphere web pages thereby creating a ``thin client'' application that
can be accessed via an intranet browser. In August 2004, Web FMIS r9.0
for pilot offices was implemented, which is a complete rewriting of the
Web FMIS functionality using all intranet based pages. By the end of
April, all Web FMIS users were using the intranet version of Web FMIS.
During 2005, Web FMIS was improved and augmented in the following
releases:
--Web FMIS r9.1.--Implemented in November 2004, addressed additional
functionality identified by the pilot offices. This was
provided to new offices of the 109th Congress.
--Web FMIS 10.0.--Implemented in February 2005, added a security
certificate to the Web FMIS web site (i.e., adding the ``S'' to
https://webfmis.senate.gov) and changed the extracts for the
nightly Web FMIS reporting cycle to use table-driven parameters
rather than hard-coded ones.
--Web FMIS 10.1.--Implemented in April 2005, provided report and
document printing via Adobe, standard Senate software, rather
than Web FMIS-specific files. This completed moving Web FMIS to
the ``zero-client'' platform, an important milestone in
providing critical systems in a disaster situation. With this
release the Rules Committee Audit staff moved from client-
server based screen to intranet-based pages for their
functions, and Disbursing staff began using ``standard notepad
text'' to document corrections made to vouchers. Additionally,
this release addressed performance issues resulting from r10.0.
--Web FMIS r10.2.--Implemented in July 2005 focused on additional
functionality for the Office, including new pages for the
Disbursing Inbox and Document Review functions, and
enhancements to the Advice of Change process and streamlined
the document approval process.
--Web FMIS r10.2.1.--Implemented in October 2005, fixed bugs in the
Disbursing functions.
--Web FMIS r10.3--Implemented in January 2006 (but included here
because most of the work on the release was done in 2005),
updated the technology for and provided more functionality on
the inbox pages and the travel reimbursement mileage rate
maintenance page. Additional functionality was added to the
Documents/Create page and the Budget page, and bugs were fixed.
During 2005, work continued with Bearing Point to define the
requirements for additional functionality required for the two Web FMIS
releases planned for 2006:
--Web FMIS r11.--Planned for Spring 2006, will add the ability to
``import'' invoice data from an outside vendor in order to
create a voucher with minimal re-typing. (This process is
similar to the ``import'' process by which data from an online
ESR, created via SAVI, is used to create a travel voucher.
--Web FMIS r12.--Planned for late Fall 2006, will be a pilot of
paperless voucher processing, which requires adding electronic
signature and documentation imaging functionality.
Senate Automated Vendor Inquiry (SAVI) and Online ESR
SAVI enables Senate staff to check the status of reimbursements,
whether via check or direct deposit referencing an on-line ESR. The
Online ESR function enables Senate staff to create expense summary
reports, both travel and non-travel. These documents can be imported
into Web FMIS, reducing the data entry tasks for voucher preparation.
The SAVI system was upgraded once in 2005. Release 3.2, implemented in
May 2005, enabled use of SAVI by Macintosh computer users.
Checkwriter
The Disbursing Office makes payments via direct deposit and via
check using the Checkwriter software. No changes were implemented to
the Checkwriter software in 2005, but Checkwriter release 6, which
rewrites the security component, will be tested in early 2006, with
implementation tentatively scheduled for summer 2006.
Planning
The Disbursing Office IT group performs two main planning
activities:
--Schedule coordination--planning and coordinating a rolling 12-month
schedule; and
--Strategic planning--setting the priorities for further system
enhancements.
Schedule Coordination
In 2005, two types of meetings were held among Disbursing, SAA and
Bearing Point staff to coordinate schedules and activities. These are:
--Project specific meetings--a useful set of project specific working
meetings, each of which has a weekly set meeting time and meets
for the duration of the project (e.g., Document Purge meetings
and Web FMIS requirements meetings); and
--Technical meeting--a weekly meeting among the DO staff (IT and
functional), SAA Technical Services staff, and Bearing Point to
discuss active projects, including scheduling activities and
resolving issues.
Strategic Planning
The FMIS strategic plan has a longer time horizon than the rolling
12-month time frame of the technical meeting schedule. It is designed
to set the direction and priorities for further enhancements. In 2002 a
five-year strategic plan was written by the IT and Accounting staff for
Disbursing Office Strategic Initiatives. This detailed description of
five strategic initiatives formed the base for the Secretary of the
Senate's request for $5 million in multi-year funds for further work on
the FMIS project. The five strategic initiatives are:
--Paperless Vouchers--Imaging of Supporting Documentation and
Electronic Signatures.--Beginning with a feasibility study and
a pilot, implement new technology, including imaging and
electronic signatures, that will reduce the Senate's dependence
on paper vouchers. This will enable continuation of voucher
processing operations from any location, should an emergency
occur;
--Web FMIS--Requests from Accounting Locations.--Respond to requests
from the Senate's Accounting Locations for additional
functionality in Web FMIS;
--Payroll System--Requests from Accounting Locations.--Respond to
requests from the Senate's Accounting Locations for on-line
real time access to payroll data;
--Accounting Subsystem Integration.--Integrate Senate-specific
accounting systems, improve internal controls, and eliminate
errors caused by re-keying of data; and
--CFO Financial Statement Development.--Provide the Senate with the
capacity to produce auditable financial statements that will
obtain an unqualified opinion.
Managing the FMIS Project
The responsibility for managing the FMIS project was transferred to
the IT group during the summer of 2003 and includes developing the task
orders with contractors, overseeing their work, and reviewing invoices.
In 2005 one new task order, the fiscal year 2006 Extended Operational
Support was executed. In addition, work continued under two task orders
executed in prior years: Web FMIS r10; SAA Finance System and Reporting
Enhancements; and Web FMIS Imaging and Digital Signature Design and
Electronic Invoicing and Remittance Enhancements.
Administering the Disbursing Office's Local Area Network (LAN)
The Disbursing Office administers its own Local Area Network (LAN),
which is separate from the LAN for the rest of the Secretary's office.
Our LAN Administrator's activities included: Office-wide LAN
Maintenance and Upgrade; and Projects for the Payroll and Benefits
Section.
Office-wide LAN Maintenance and Upgrade
Existing workstations were maintained with appropriate upgrades,
including: an e-mail upgrade to ``Active Directory''; the addition of
``SNAP'' servers to backup, nightly, our office data in Disbursing and
directly to the Office's space at the ACF; work with the SAA staff to
upgrade our network speed to 100 mps; and the maintenance of the Office
Information Authorization form log which provides easy access from
Disbursing staff desktops to up-to-date information about the
authorized contacts for each Senate office.
Projects for Payroll and Employee Benefits Sections
The Payroll/Benefits imaging system, developed by SAA staff, and
which captures and indexes payroll documents electronically, continues
to be supported. This is a critical system for Payroll and Employee
Benefits sections.
Coordinating the Disbursing Office's Disaster Recovery Activities
On Saturday, December 3, 2005, the Sergeant at Arms technical staff
conducted a disaster recovery test of the Senate's computing
facilities, including the Financial Management Information System
(FMIS) functions. The test involved switching the Senate's network from
accessing systems at the Primary Computing Facility (PCF) to our backup
facility, and powering down the PCF.
The SAA's primary purpose was to test the technical process of
switching to our backup facility, and only a limited amount of time was
available for functional testing. The SAA staff wanted to complete the
exercise within a 12-hour window, including the time needed to switch
us to the backup facility and back to the PCF. A two-hour functional
testing window was expected. In the scenario, FMIS systems and data
would be ``failed-over'' to the backup facility, and made available for
testing during the functional testing window. The systems would then be
``failed back'' to the PCF, but the data would not be ``failed back''.
Consequently, any changes made while testing at the backup facility
would not be made to production data.
Disbursing staff set minimal goals of accessing all critical FMIS
subsystems. In a two hour functional testing window, the SAA would not
have time to run critical batch processes such as those which would
enable a single document to be taken from data entry in Web FMIS
through payment in FAMIS. Consequently, plans were made to test each
on-line step in the process separately. Additionally, the time
constraint did not allow any overnight batch processes to be run.
Within the limited scope of the test, most of the critical
components of FMIS were tested. A request has been made to the SAA that
disaster recovery tests be conducted twice a year and that additional
system components be tested at each successive event.
administrative offices
1. conservation and preservation
The Office of Conservation and Preservation develops and
coordinates programs directly related to the conservation and
preservation of Senate records and materials for which the Secretary of
the Senate has statutory authority. This includes: deacidification of
paper and prints, phased conservation for books and documents,
collection surveys, exhibits, and matting and framing for the Senate
Leadership.
Over the past year, the Office of Conservation and Preservation has
embossed 621 books and matted and framed 532 items for the Senate
Leadership. In addition, this office matted and framed 349 items for
the 55th Inaugural ceremonies. For more than twenty-four years, the
office has bound a copy of Washington's Farewell Address for the annual
Washington's Farewell Address ceremony. In 2005, a volume was bound and
read by Senator Richard Burr.
As mandated in the 1990 Senate Library Collection Condition Survey,
the Office of Conservation and Preservation continues to conduct an
annual treatment of books identified by the survey as needing
conservation or repair. In 2005, conservation treatments were completed
for 139 volumes of a 7,000 volume collection of House hearings.
Specifically, treatment involved recasing each volume as required,
using alkaline end sheets, replacing acidic tab sheets with alkaline
paper, cleaning the cloth cases, and replacing black spine title labels
of each volume as necessary. The Office of Conservation and
Preservation will continue preservation of the remaining 3,900 volumes.
This office assisted the Senate Library with 531 books that were
sent to the Library Binding section of the Government Printing Office
(GPO) for binding. Additionally, the office worked with the Library to
facilitate the creation of five exhibits located in the Senate Russell
building basement corridor. The Office of Conservation and Preservation
also assisted the Senate Curator's staff with special matting and
framing required for the World War II exhibit located on the first
floor of the Capitol.
This office continues to assist Senate offices with conservation
and preservation of documents, books, and various other items. For
example, the office is currently monitoring the temperature and
humidity in the Senate Library storage areas, the vault and warehouse
for preservation and conservation purposes.
2. curator
The Office of Senate Curator, on behalf of the Senate Commission on
Art, develops and implements the museum and preservation programs for
the United States Senate. The Office collects, preserves, and
interprets the Senate's fine and decorative arts, historic objects, and
specific architectural features; and exercises supervisory
responsibility for the historic chambers in the Capitol under the
jurisdiction of the Commission. Through exhibitions, publications, and
other programs, the Office educates the public about the Senate and its
collections.
Collections: Commissions, Acquisitions, and Management
A painting of Senator George Mitchell was officially unveiled on
May 24, 2005 as part of the Senate Leadership Portrait Collection, and
a painting of Senator Margaret Chase Smith was unveiled on October 18.
Both ceremonies were held in the historic Old Senate Chamber. Other
important commissioned works in progress include a portrait of Senator
Bob Dole and the Great Compromise mural. Both are projected to be
completed in 2006.
Thirty-eight objects were accessioned into the Senate Collection,
including the painting Portrait of a Child with Moth by Constantino
Brumidi; several rare stereoviews of the Senate Chamber from the late
19th century; tickets, passes, and luncheon items related to the 2005
Presidential Inauguration; ephemera from the 200th anniversary
celebration of the birth of Constantino Brumidi; and nine albums with
images of Senators and Senate staff from the late 18th to the early
20th centuries. One of the nine albums contains rare cabinet cards
depicting the 41st Congress made by the Matthew Brady studio, along
with autographs of 73 Senators.
In an ongoing effort to locate and recover historic Senate pieces
associated with the institution, the Office acquired for the Senate
Collection an important painting and a 19th century chair. The
painting, Signing of the First Treaty of Peace with Great Britain by
Constantino Brumidi, is the original sketch for the mural that appears
in the Brumidi Corridors above the entrance to S-118. The chair dates
to about 1819 and was made by Thomas Constantine for the Senate
Chamber. It is a noteworthy addition to the collection, as only 4 of
the original 48 chairs made by Constantine for the Senate are known to
exist.
Fifty new foreign gifts were reported to the Select Committee on
Ethics and transferred to the Curator's Office. They were catalogued,
and are maintained by the Office in accordance with the Foreign Gifts
and Decorations Act. Appropriate disposition of 28 objects in the
collection was completed following established procedures.
As construction continues on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), the
Office has worked with a conservator specializing in museum facility
planning to develop a collection storage plan for all objects scheduled
to move to the designated curatorial storage rooms in the CVC. The plan
includes detailed equipment layout and design in order to provide
optimal preservation for storing the objects.
The Curator's Office continued with its project to photograph the
102 historic Senate Chamber desks (which includes the 100 on the Senate
floor and two desks currently in storage). One set of transparencies
will be stored off-site for emergency purposes, while a second working
set will be used for the web, image requests, and future publications.
Fifty-five desks were photographed in 2005; the project is ahead of
schedule and is projected to be completed by August 2006.
In keeping with established procedures, all Senate Collection
objects on display were inventoried, noting any changes in location. In
addition, as directed by S. Res. 178, the Office submitted inventories
of the art and historic furnishings in the Senate to the Rules
Committee. The inventories, to be submitted every six months, are
compiled by the Curator's Office with assistance from the Senate
Sergeant at Arms (SAA) and Architect of the Capitol (AOC) Senate
Superintendent.
Conservation and Restoration
A total of 20 objects received conservation treatment in 2005.
These included nine Senate Chamber desks, eight oil on canvas
paintings, two cabinet card albums, and one manuscript collection.
The initiative to conserve all 100 historic Senate Chamber desks,
which began in 1999, was completed. Twice a year, during Senate recess
periods, desks were removed from the Senate Chamber and sent out for
restoration. Treatment was extensive, and followed a detailed protocol
developed to address the wear and degradation of these historic desks
due to continued heavy use. In December, the last of the desks was
restored. During this project, a condition survey was conducted and
completed. The survey emphasized the necessity of installing rubber
bumpers to the arms of the Senate Chamber chairs to minimize the damage
to the front of the desks caused by the chair arms. That work was also
completed this year, and all future chairs will be constructed with
bumpers.
After extensive evaluation and research, a scope of work was
developed for the conservation of the portrait of George Washington by
Gilbert Stuart in the Senate Collection. This project coincided with a
major exhibition on Stuart's work at the National Gallery of Art, which
afforded the opportunity to consult with experts in the field. The
portrait was restored by conservators with extensive knowledge of
Gilbert Stuart's paintings; and the frame was also conserved.
Restoration has revealed the Senate's portrait to be among the finest
of Stuart's paintings of the first president.
Two recently commissioned paintings, Blanche Kelso Bruce and James
O. Eastland, were varnished by conservators to enhance and protect the
surfaces now that the paint has properly cured.
Another conservation project was related to the microfilming and
digitization of the Isaac Bassett Papers, the manuscript collection of
a 19th century Senate employee. Prior to microfilming, a conservator
carried out the treatment and re-housing of the papers necessary for
preservation. The entire effort to microfilm and digitize the
collection was completed by the fall of 2005, and will help preserve
the original papers in case of disaster, as well as provide
reproductions for the use of scholars and other researchers. In
addition, the digitized images provided extensive material for the
Isaac Bassett website exhibit.
The Office completed the detailed condition and identification
survey of the nearly 100 historic mirrors in the Senate wing. The
project has significant benefits. The condition assessments will
determine priorities for conservation and maintenance treatments;
provide information on the age, origin, and importance of the frames;
and furnish documentation for disaster planning.
The Curator's staff participated in training sessions for the
Capitol Police regarding the care and protection of art in the Capitol,
and continued to educate housekeeping personnel on maintenance issues
related to the fine and decorative art collections.
Historic Preservation
The Curator's Office worked with the AOC and SAA to review,
comment, plan, and document Senate side construction projects that
involve or impact historic resources. In addition to receiving planning
information from those organizations, the office initiated a procedure
for sharing Curator project schedules. This has greatly improved
coordination and project execution. Construction and conservation
efforts that required considerable review and assistance included:
Brumidi Corridor ceiling restoration near S-112; window shutter
refinishing; grand stairwell plaster replacement; marble step repair;
Brumidi west corridor egress installation; Minton tile replacement;
wireless antenna installation; audio alert system; S-324 ceiling
recreation; and S-229 renovation.
As part of the S-229 renovation project, there was a request to
provide an overmantel mirror for the room. The Office has developed a
mirror replication project, to duplicate an historic mirror in the
Capitol. The mirror selected for replication was a good example of a
particular style, complements the majority of mantels and spaces in the
Capitol, and will easily accommodate modifications of size and ornament
in any future replications. The new mirror was created and installed.
Requests from Senate offices for information pertaining to room
histories, architectural features, and historic images continue to
increase. Recent initiatives have greatly improved office response time
and depth of knowledge. In addition, the Office is working in
partnership with the AOC Curator's Office and the Senate Historical
Office to develop a room history program that will produce a definitive
and up-to-date history for significant Senate rooms and suites.
Research projects undertaken this year included: the Assistant
Democratic Leader's suite; the Democratic Leader's suite; and the Strom
Thurmond Room, S-238. Additionally, the Office worked closely with the
AOC in the creation of an historic structures report for the Senate
vestibule, adjacent stairwell, and small Senate rotunda. This report
provides critical documentation regarding the architectural chronology
of these important historic spaces.
Historic Chambers
The Curator's staff continued to maintain the Old Senate and Old
Supreme Court Chambers, and coordinated periodic use of both rooms for
special occasions. By order of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Old Senate
Chamber was closed to visitors after September 11, 2001. However,
during Senate recesses the historic room is open to tours. Thirty-six
requests were received from current Members of Congress for after-hours
access to the Chamber. Of special significance was the reenactment
swearing-in ceremony for the newly elected Senators of the 109th
Congress. Twenty-nine requests were received by current Members of
Congress for admittance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber after-hours.
Images of the room were provided to the Supreme Court Historical
Society for use on a bicentennial coin honoring Chief Justice John
Marshall. In addition, C-SPAN used high definition equipment in both
chambers to take footage for an historical documentary on the U.S.
Capitol, and both rooms were photographed for the CVC interactive
exhibitions.
In order to enhance existing documentation and to provide an
important resource for future planning, the Office is working closely
with the AOC to create condition drawings of the Old Senate Chamber
that meet the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standard.
Currently such detailed drawings do not exist for this chamber, or any
space within the Capitol, yet this is important historical and archival
documentation. When complete, the drawings will be accepted into the
HABS national collection at the Library of Congress.
The Office continued to research the origins of one of the Senate's
most important art works, the Eagle and Shield, in the Old Senate
Chamber. This gilded carving, which dates from the early 19th century,
has long been an important symbol of the institution. Initial research
focused on the style and construction of carved eagles contemporary
with the Senate. In addition, contacts were made with museums that
house such eagles for further research.
Loans To and From the Collection
A total of 68 historic objects and paintings are currently on loan
to the Curator's Office on behalf of Senate leadership and officials in
the Capitol. The staff added loans of six paintings for leadership
suites, returned five paintings at the expiration of their loan periods
to their respective owners, and renewed loan agreements for 29 other
objects.
The Office continued to document, photograph, and prepare various
Senate Collection objects planned for exhibition in the CVC. Several of
the objects (from an oil painting to a silver snuff box) will require
conservation prior to installation in the exhibit hall, and the
Curator's office is assisting in this conservation.
Since 1982 the Senate has loaned a major historical painting, The
Battle of Chapultepec by James Walker, to the Marine Corps Historical
Museum in Washington, D.C. Originally the painting was displayed in the
West Grand Stairway of the Senate wing from 1858 until 1961. The Marine
Corps relocated to a new museum facility in 2005, terminating the
Senate loan. Given the painting's size, the Curator's Office was tasked
to identify another location for the painting. This historic work will
be relocated to the Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and
Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in early 2006. The Gilcrease Museum will
provide an excellent venue for continued public display of the painting
within the context of the history of the southwest region of the
country. Development of a plan to safely remove the painting from
display and transport it to its new location was greatly enhanced by
consultation with the conservator on the Senate Curatorial Advisory
Board.
The Secretary's china was distributed and returned four times in
2005. It was used for the Inaugural luncheon, as well as the First
Lady's luncheon. The inventory was increased with the acquisition of 85
cups and saucers. The official Senate china was inventoried and used at
41 receptions for distinguished guests.
Publications and Exhibitions
The Curator's Office finalized the content and design for the
United States Senate Catalogue of Graphic Art. The publication is
scheduled for 2006. The volume features the Senate's collection of more
than 900 historic engravings and lithographs, and includes two full-
length essays and almost 40 short essays discussing selected prints.
The Senate Curator and Associate Senate Historian co-authored the
publication. It is a companion volume to the United States Senate
Catalogue of Fine Art, published in 2003.
As part of an ongoing program to provide information about the
Capitol's art and historic spaces, three new information panels were
installed for the following paintings: The Florida Case before the
Electoral Commission; The Battle of Lake Erie; and First Reading of the
Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln.
In July 2005, to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of
artist Constantino Brumidi, the office de-installed the popular
photographic exhibition, World War II: The Senate and the Nation's
Capital and installed To Make Beautiful the Capitol: Birds of the
Brumidi Corridors. This exhibition places in context the myriad of
ornithological species that were painted by Brumidi and his team of
artists. An online version of the exhibit was also developed for the
Senate.gov website.
Several other internet exhibits were posted including, Presidential
Inaugurations: Invitations and Tickets in the U.S. Senate Collection
and Inaugural Luncheons. The Office received delivery of the program
files for two major websites, Isaac Bassett: A Senate Memoir, and The
Senate Chamber Desks. Both were developed in conjunction with the
Secretary's webmaster and a contractor. Isaac Bassett features
selections from the Isaac Bassett manuscript collection, with
illustrations from the Senate's collection of art and historical
objects. It highlights life in the 19th century Senate based on
Bassett's personal observations and recollections. His unique position
as a trusted, long-time employee of the Senate and close confidant of
many Senators make the stories he included in his memoir both engaging
and enlightening. The website features actual images of Bassett's
handwritten notes and an interactive time line.
The Senate Chamber Desks website chronicles the history of these
historic furnishings, many of which date back to 1819. Viewers will see
where each Senator sits and learn specific information about each desk:
biographical information on the Senators who have occupied it;
conservation and restoration information; and traditions and historical
facts. This site will be launched in 2006, and updated at the beginning
of each Congress to provide current information.
Another educational project was the development of an oral history
program related to the Senate's art and historical collections. Artists
were interviewed to gain valuable knowledge regarding recently
commissioned portraits and this information will be posted on the
Senate website in the near future.
Adding to its presence on Senate.gov, the Office published the
essays of the 160 pieces of art in the United States Senate Catalogue
of Fine Art. Several popular brochures were reprinted in 2005, and the
office continued to be a significant contributor to Unum, the Secretary
of the Senate's newsletter.
Policies and Procedures
Meetings were held with the new Senate Curatorial Advisory Board.
Composed of respected scholars and curators, this 12-member board was
established to provide expert advice to the Commission regarding the
Senate's art and historic collections and preservation program, and to
assist in the acquisition and review of new objects for the
collections.
In 2005 the Senate passed legislation codifying the Senate
Leadership Portrait Collection, which honors past majority and minority
leaders and presidents pro tempore of the Senate. These portraits are
to be commissioned after the leaders have completed their service. The
resolution also provides that the portraits may hang in the Senate
Chamber Lobby at the direction of the Senate.
An electronic tracking system was developed to record progress
through the steps of the accessioning process for new additions to the
Senate Collection. The system allows reports to be generated that
identify what types of documentation have been prepared and what
remains to be completed for each new accession.
Collaborations, Educational Programs, and Events
As part of the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of
artist Constantino Brumidi on July 26, 2005, the Curator's Office
promoted various Senate activities honoring Brumidi. As well as
developing the exhibit on the birds of the Brumidi Corridors, the
Office worked in partnership with Senate and AOC offices to generate
articles and information panels about Brumidi's importance and
contributions to the Capitol, and to sponsor special tours highlighting
the artist's work.
The Senate Curator and staff gave lectures on the Senate's art and
historical collections to various historical societies and art museums,
including George Washington University, the Federal Preservation
Institute, and the U.S. Capitol Historical Society.
Office Administration
The project to microfiche and digitize the collection object files
was completed. These files are the primary legal title, research, and
management records for all art and historical objects owned by the
Senate and maintained by the Commission on Art. This project also
serves important disaster recovery and archival preservation functions.
Copies of the microfiche and digital records will be kept off-site for
disaster recovery and archival purposes. Additional copies will be used
on-site for research and public information in order to lessen the wear
and tear on the original paper records.
The Senate Support Facility was completed. The Curator's Office
worked for several years with the Sergeant at Arms to develop a space
within the warehouse that meets the stringent requirements for storing
fine and decorative art. Environmental testing for the museum-quality
storage area is now underway, and relocation of collection objects to
this space is scheduled for the summer of 2006. The office moved its
non-collection items to the new warehouse, including exhibit and art
shipping materials, and publications. These items were re-inventoried
and new tracking numbers assigned.
Automation
The Office continued to improve its electronic collection
management database to provide more efficient and accurate data
recording and searches. The addition of several fields to record
inventory location, date, and reviewer is one such change that improves
the information regarding the current and previous locations for
objects. The registration department also implemented an electronic
tracking system to improve the accuracy and efficiency of loan
renewals.
In addition, the Office researched electronic systems that monitor
temperature and relative humidity, to assure the stability of all
objects on display and in storage. The ideal system will continuously
download data for analysis and provide instant notification via phone,
e-mail and/or blackberry when environmental conditions undergo a sudden
and potentially damaging change. Staff worked with Senate Security on
the initiative. Procurement and installation of the system may occur in
2006.
In an effort to integrate new technologies, improve research
capabilities, and address preservation concerns, the Office is
developing an organization plan and procedures that will affect all
types of files and media collected and maintained. The results will
greatly improve response time to information requests, search
capabilities for researchers, and the condition of significant
reference materials. Related to this effort was the installation of an
image management server. This service allows staff to store the many
large-sized image files that are so vital to the Office's mission,
enables the images to be archived regularly, and prevents the immense
number of items from clogging bandwidth time and storage space on the
Secretary's LAN servers.
Objectives for 2006
A major initiative will be to relocate Senate Collection items to
the new SAA off-site warehouse facility. Work will include: developing
an object tracking system; reviewing the SAA warehouse inventory
system, access procedures, and protocol; ensuring all equipment, HVAC,
and security needs are functioning; coordinating the move with the
assistance of fine art handlers; and developing a procedural document
regarding the storage of collection objects at the SAA warehouse.
The Office also will prepare for moving collection objects in 2007
to the two new CVC storage spaces. Based on the recently completed
Collection Storage Plan, museum-quality storage equipment will be
ordered to house collection objects in these new spaces. Objects in
need of archival re-housing will be identified, prioritized, and re-
housed in preparation for the move.
The Curator's environmental monitoring systems will be assessed in
all locations where collections are displayed or stored. Temporary
systems will be installed for evaluation, and following testing, a
comprehensive program will be recommended and implemented as
appropriate.
An integrated pest management plan will be prepared for all storage
spaces where collection items are located. The plan will include
procedures for preparation of objects for storage, monitoring of
conditions, and developing contacts and resources for disaster
recovery.
Conservation and preservation concerns continue to be a priority.
Projects in 2006 will include the treatment of several historic
paintings and frames, as well as objects for new CVC exhibits. The
Battle of Chapultepec will be relocated to the Gilcrease Museum in
Oklahoma. The Office will build on the information generated by the
recently completed mirror survey and develop a plan for the
conservation and maintenance of the Senate's historic mirror
collection. The restoration of the painting, First Reading of the
Emancipation Proclamation, by F.B. Carpenter, is now projected to be
completed in 2006. Additionally, the Office will focus on the Senate's
recently acquired Cornelius & Baker armorial chandelier. Following a
condition assessment, the office will work with the Senate Curatorial
Advisory Board to review treatment options and recommend a plan for the
chandelier to the Commission on Art.
The Office will advance efforts to commission portraits of Senators
Byrd, Lott, and Daschle. Unveilings are projected for the portrait of
former Senator Bob Dole and the Great Compromise mural.
The Isaac Bassett Papers manuscript collection will be deposited at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Initial
meetings have been held with NARA to discuss organization and storage
of the collection along with logistical considerations. As a result of
the recently completed microfilming project, the office will submit the
original collection, microfilm and digital copies of the papers, and
extensive indexes for use by future researchers.
The Curator's staff will undertake a comprehensive and detailed
survey of the Senate Chamber chairs. While the Senate Chamber desks
have been studied extensively, the accompanying chairs, which date from
various eras, have never been fully examined. It is hoped that this
study will enable the identification and preservation of important
chairs that still remain in the Senate.
Collection activities will also include efforts to locate and
recover significant historic Senate pieces. Investigations were
conducted in 2005 to locate partner desks and other furniture made by
George Cobb for the Russell Senate Office building in 1909. A total of
twelve desks were identified outside the Senate, and are either in
private collections or on display in museums.
In the area of education, the United States Senate Catalogue of
Graphic Art will be published. The Office will produce a brochure for
S-238, the Strom Thurmond Room. Also related to room histories, staff
will continue to work with the AOC Curator's Office and Senate
Historical Office to finalize the room history program.
The Office will embark on a reorganization of the Senate art
website to provide easier, more intuitive access to the Senate's art,
historical collections, and online exhibits and publications. This task
will be undertaken in coordination with Senate webmaster and Senate
Library staff, and will be an important early step in creating and
organizing the Senate's web content according to standardized metadata.
The Senate Preservation Board of Trustees will hold its first
meeting, and the Senate Curatorial Advisory Board will continue to meet
biannually. The Office will work with the Senate Curatorial Advisory
Board to review and report on several preservation projects including:
the historic structures report for the Senate vestibule, adjacent
stairwell, and small Senate rotunda; the preservation of the Minton
tile floors; and the current HABS-standard drawing documentation
project.
Work is underway to develop a five-year strategic plan for the
Office of Senate Curator. This will be an important document for the
Office as it moves forward with its many conservation, preservation,
and education initiatives. Additionally, the Senate Curator's
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) will be reevaluated, tabletop
exercises conducted, and the COOP document updated.
3. joint office of education and training
The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
training and development opportunities for all Senate staff. There are
three branches within the department. The technical training branch is
responsible for providing technical training support for approved
software packages used in either Washington or the state offices. This
branch's computer training staff provides instructor-led classes; one-
on-one coaching sessions; specialized vendor-provided training;
computer-based training; and informal training and support services.
The professional training branch provides courses for all Senate staff
in areas including management and leadership development, human
resources issues and staff benefits, legislative and staff information,
new staff and intern information. The Health Promotion branch provides
seminars, classes and screenings on health related and wellness issues.
This branch also coordinates an annual Health Fair for all Senate
employees and four blood drives each year.
Training Classes
The Joint Office of Education and Training offered 405 classes in
2005; 5,982 Senate employees participated in these classes. This
office's registration desk handled 31,960 requests for training and
documentation.
Of the above total, in the Technical Training area 187 classes were
held with a total attendance of 1,521 students. An additional 770 staff
received coaching on various software packages and other computer
related issues.
In the Professional Development area 218 classes were held with a
total attendance of 4,461 students. Individual managers and supervisors
are also encouraged to request customized training for their offices on
areas of need.
The Office of Education and Training is available to work with
teams on issues related to team performance, communication or conflict
resolution. During 2005, over 50 requests for special training or team
building were met. Professional development staff also traveled to
state offices to conduct specialized training and team building. During
the last quarter of the year, we offered training via video
teleconferencing to two state offices and plan to continue this
practice.
In the Health Promotion area, 1,240 Senate staff participated in
Health Promotion activities throughout the year. These activities
included: cancer screening, bone density screening and seminars on
health related topics. Additionally 1,492 staff participated in the
Annual Health Fair held in September.
The Joint Office of Education and Training has been actively
working with the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness to
provide security training for Senate staff. In 2005, the Office of
Education and Training coordinated 63 sessions of escape hood and other
security-related training for 1,010 Senate staff.
State Training
Since most of the classes that are offered are only practical for
D.C. based staff, the Office of Education and Training continues to
offer the ``State Training Fair'' which began in March 2000. In 2005,
three sessions of this program were offered to 119 state staff. This
office also conducted our annual State Directors Forum for the second
year and 37 attended. In addition, this office has implemented the
``Virtual Classroom'' which is an internet based training library of
300+ courses. To date, 379 state office and Washington, D.C. staff are
accessing a total of 500 different lessons using this training option.
4. chief counsel for employment
Background
The Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment (SCCE) is a
non-partisan office established at the direction of the Joint
Leadership in 1993 after enactment of the Government Employee Rights
Act (``GERA''), which allowed Senate employees to file claims of
employment discrimination against Senate offices. With the enactment of
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (``CAA''), Senate offices
became subject to the requirements, responsibilities and obligations of
11 employment laws. The SCCE is charged with legal defense of Senate
offices in employment law cases at both the administrative and court
levels. Also, on a day-to-day basis, the SCCE provides legal advice to
Senate offices about their obligations under employment laws.
Accordingly, each employing office of the Senate is an individual
client of the SCCE, and each office maintains an attorney-client
relationship with the SCCE.
The areas of responsibilities of the SCCE can be divided into the
following categories: Litigation (Defending Senate Offices in Federal
Courts); Mediations to Resolve Lawsuits; Court-Ordered Alternative
Dispute Resolutions; Union Drives, Negotiations, and Unfair Labor
Practice Charges; OSHA/Americans With Disability Act (``ADA'')
Compliance; Layoffs and Office Closings In Compliance With the Law;
Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities; and Preventive
Legal Advice.
Litigation; Mediations; Alternative Dispute Resolutions
The SCCE represents each of the employing offices of the Senate in
all court actions (including both trial and appellate courts),
hearings, proceedings, investigations, and negotiations relating to
labor and employment laws. The SCCE handles cases filed in the District
of Columbia and cases filed in any of the 50 states.
OSHA/ADA Compliance
The SCCE provides advice and assistance to Senate offices by
assisting them with complying with the applicable OSHA and ADA
regulations; representing them during Office of Compliance inspections;
advising State offices on the preparation of the Office of Compliance's
Home State OSHA/ADA Inspection Questionnaires; assisting offices in the
preparation of Emergency Action Plans; and advising and representing
Senate offices when a complaint of an OSHA violation has been filed
with the Office of Compliance or when a citation has been issued.
In 2005, the SCCE conducted 131 OSHA/ADA inspections of Senate
offices to ensure compliance with the CAA.
Management Training Regarding Legal Responsibilities
The SCCE conducts legal seminars for the managers of Senate offices
to assist them in complying with employment laws.
In 2005, the SCCE gave 56 legal seminars to Senate offices. Among
the topics covered were:
--An Overview of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995:
Management's Rights and Obligations;
--Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace;
--How to Interview and Hire the Best Employee Without Violating the
Law;
--How to Conduct Background Checks, Reference Checks and Drug Testing
Without Violating the Law;
--Complying with Immigration Laws: I-9 and the Basic Pilot Program
for Employment Eligibility Confirmation;
--Labor-Management Overview: Union Post-Election Procedures;
--Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
--Management's Legal Obligations to Give Military Leave to Employees;
--Legal Pitfalls in Evaluating, Disciplining and Firing Employees;
--How to Comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.
In addition, in 2005, the SCCE prepared new videos to accompany its
harassment seminar. This involved writing the scripts, recruiting
Senate employees to participate, training the ``actors,'' and working
with the Recording Studio to direct, record, edit and finalize the
vignettes. The purpose of the vignettes is to illustrate points raised
during the harassment seminar with examples that are Senate-specific.
The SCCE has received extremely positive feedback from Members' offices
at which the harassment seminars have been given using these new
videos.
Preventative Legal Advice
The SCCE meets with Members, Chiefs of Staff, Administrative
Directors, Office Managers, Staff Directors, Chief Clerks and General
Counsels at their request. The purposes are to ensure compliance with
the law, prevent litigation and minimize liability in the event of
litigation. For example, on a daily basis, the SCCE advises Senate
offices on matters such as disciplining and/or terminating employees in
compliance with the law, handling and investigating sexual harassment
complaints, accommodating the disabled, determining wage law
requirements, meeting the requirements of the Family and Medical Leave
Act, and management's rights and obligations under union laws and OSHA.
Administrative/Miscellaneous Matters
The SCCE provides legal assistance to employing offices to ensure
that their employee handbooks/office policies, supervisors' manuals,
job descriptions, interviewing guidelines, and performance evaluation
forms comply with the law
Union Drives, Negotiations, and Unfair Labor Practice Charges
In 2005, the SCCE handled one union drive and assisted in
negotiations with another union. With respect to the union drive, the
SCCE trained managers and supervisors regarding their legal obligations
during a union campaign, advised the client in selecting its
representatives for the election and conducted training sessions for
the employer representatives regarding proper conduct at elections.
Layoffs and Office Closings in Compliance with the Law
The SCCE provides advice and strategy to individual Senate offices
regarding how to minimize legal liability in compliance with the law
when offices reduce their forces. In addition, pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), offices that are
closing must follow certain procedures for notifying their employees of
the closing and for transitioning them out of the office. The SCCE
tracks office closings and notifies those offices of their legal
obligations under the WARN Act.
5. senate gift shop
The Senate Gift Shop was established under administrative direction
and supervision of the Secretary of the Senate (SOS) in October 1992,
(United States Code, Title 2, Chapter 4). With each successive year
since its establishment the Senate Gift Shop has continued to provide
outstanding products and services that maintain the integrity of the
Senate as well as increase the public's awareness of the mission and
history of the U.S. Senate. The Gift Shop provides products and
services to Senators, their spouses, staffs, constituents, and
visitors. Products include a wide variety of souvenirs, collectibles
and fine gift items created exclusively for the U.S. Senate. Services
include special ordering of personalized products, custom framing, gold
embossing, engraving and shipping. Additional services include the
distribution of educational materials to both tourists and constituents
visiting the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings. New this year is the
Senate Gift Shop's presence on Webster.
Facilities
For several years the Senate Gift Shop offered over-the-counter
sales to walk-in customers at a single location. Today, after more than
a decade of operation, the Gift Shop provides products and services
from three locations.
In addition to the three physical locations, the Gift Shop has
developed an online presence on Webster. The intranet site currently
offers only a limited selection of products that may be ordered either
by phone or by printing and faxing the on-site order form. Long-term
plans are to grow this site to include a greater sample of merchandise
offered in the Gift Shop's physical locations and to eventually migrate
to an e-commerce website with online transactions. Along with offering
over-the-counter, walk-in sales, and limited intranet services, the
Gift Shop Administrative Office provides mail order service, special
order and catalogue sales.
The Gift Shop also maintains two warehouse facilities. While the
bulk of its overstock is currently held in an off-site storage
facility, a portion of the Gift Shop's overstock is maintained in the
Hart Building warehouse facility. This space also accommodates the Gift
Shop's receiving, shipping, and engraving departments.
Operational plans for the off-site facility include having most, if
not all, Gift Shop product delivered, received and stored at this
location until the need for transfer to Gift Shop locations. Although
the overall management of the warehouse is through the Sergeant at Arms
(SAA), the Director of the Gift Shop has responsibility for the
operation and oversight of the interior spaces assigned for Gift Shop
use. Storing inventory in a centralized, climate-controlled facility
that is managed by the SAA will provide better protection for the Gift
Shop's valuable inventory in terms of increased and steadfast security
as well as prolonged shelf life for product.
Sales Activity
Sales recorded for fiscal year 2005 were $1,591,244.36. Cost of
goods sold during this same period was $1,006,655.30, accounting for a
gross profit on sales of $584,589.06.
In addition to tracking gross profit from sales, the Senate Gift
Shop maintains a revolving fund and a record of inventory purchased for
resale. As of October 1, 2005, the balance in the revolving fund was
$1,833,614.70 and the inventory purchased for resale was valued at
$2,295,554.07.
Additional Activity
The contractor selected to provide the hardware and system
installation of the new retail and financial management system has
completed its contractual obligations to the Senate Gift Shop with the
final deliverables completed in 2005. The contractor will continue to
provide hardware and software support for the retail system.
Accomplishments and New Products in Fiscal Year 2005
Official Congressional Holiday Ornaments
The year 2005 marked the conclusion of the Gift Shop's third
consecutive ``four-year ornament series.'' Each ornament in the 2002-
2005 series of unique collectibles features an architectural milestone
of the United States Capitol and is packaged with corresponding
historical text taken from the book, History of the United States
Capitol: A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics by William
C. Allen, Architectural Historian for the Architect of the Capitol.
The 2005 ornament pictures the Capitol's West Front with particular
emphasis on the newly landscaped lawn and terraces. Congress authorized
the landscape improvements in 1873, and on June 23, 1874, passed an act
to hire the first landscape architect of the United States Capitol,
Frederick Law Olmsted. Olmsted's idea for redesigning the landscape of
the Capitol grounds is illustrated in a drawing titled ``General Plan
for the Improvement of the Capitol Grounds.'' In keeping with a Gift
Shop tradition, the authentic colors of the original drawing were
reproduced onto a white porcelain stone and set with a brass frame
finished in 24kt gold.
Sales of the 2005 holiday ornament exceeded 32,000 ornaments of
which more than 7,400 were personalized with engravings designed,
proofed and etched by Senate Gift Shop staff. This highly successful
effort was made possible by the combined effort of our administrative,
engraving, and store staffs. Additional sales of this ornament and
ornaments from previous years are expected to continue throughout 2006.
Sales revenue from this year's ornament, as in previous years, helps to
provide scholarship funds for the Senate Child Care Center.
The theme for the Gift Shop's fourth series of ornaments, which
will run from 2006-2009, is currently in development with production of
the 2006 ornament targeted for this summer and sale of the ornament
expected to begin in September 2006.
China Porcelain Boxes
The final porcelain ``Brumidi'' box in a set of four was completed
and released for sale in 2005. Each box displays a different image from
the Constantino Brumidi frescoes taken from the ceiling of the
President's Room in the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol. The
individual boxes of the series include the allegorical figures:
Liberty, Legislation, Executive Authority and Religion. These porcelain
boxes, exclusive to the Senate Gift Shop, will be popular collector
items for many years to come.
Projects and New Initiatives for 2006
History of the Capitol
The Gift Shop will purchase for resale the book, History of the
Capitol, (H. Doc. 108-240) by Glenn Brown. When the GPO publication is
released for sale to distributors and retailers in 2006, the Gift Shop
plans to purchase a substantial quantity to ensure availability to its
customers for an extended period of time.
Congressional Plates
The series of Official Congressional Plates continued in 2005 with
new design features beginning with the 108th Congress plate, which
became available for sale this past year. The balance of the series
includes plates commemorating the 109th, 110th and 111th Congresses.
The design stage for the remaining plates has concluded and prototypes
for the final three are being produced by Tiffany & Co.
Constantino Brumidi Birthday Celebration
The year 2005 marked the 200th Birthday of Constantino Brumidi,
``The Artist of the Capitol.'' In celebration of this special occasion,
the staff of the Gift Shop worked closely with the staff of the
Curator's Office on an initiative to add to our collection of Brumidi-
inspired merchandise. The new products include a designer collection of
note cards depicting images of birds taken from the frescoes gracing
the walls of the Capitol's Brumidi corridors. Other products featuring
Brumidi's artwork that are currently offered for sale in the Senate
Gift Shop include neckties, scarves, round porcelain boxes and the book
Brumidi ``Artist of the Capitol.'' Additional Brumidi pieces are in
production.
Intranet/Webster
The Webster intranet website for the Gift Shop continues to be
enhanced. Primary considerations include website policy, design and
layout, content and products to be included. Meetings concerning the
creation and expansion of the Gift Shop's website are ongoing with
other Secretary departments. The Gift Shop's intends to incorporate
links to the offices of the Historian, Curator and Senate Library so
that visitors to the website will have ready access to additional
educational information.
Capitol Complex Lumber
In the fall of 2001 the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center
(CVC) required the removal of many trees from the Capitol complex.
During this time, Allegany Wood Products (Allegany) of Petersburg, West
Virginia, assisted in determining the best method for the recover and
transport of the felled trees. Arrangements were made for a local West
Virginia trucking company to travel to Washington, D.C., to pick up and
haul the cut trees to one of Allegany's lumber mills, where the trees
could be rough cut and kiln dried, a process which makes possible the
preservation and long-term storage of the lumber. The stored lumber
approximating 12,000 board feet is now being inventoried and segregated
by species. Plans to determine the most appropriate use for the lumber
will be developed this year. Preliminary ideas involve using a quantity
of wood to create ``official products'' such as presentation, gift and
commemorative items.
6. historical office
Serving as the Senate's institutional memory, the Historical Office
collects and provides information on important events, precedents,
dates, statistics, and historical comparisons of current and past
Senate activities for use by members and staff, the media, scholars,
and the general public. The Office advises Senators, officers, and
committees on cost-effective disposition of their non-current office
files and assists researchers in identifying Senate-related source
materials. The Office keeps extensive biographical, bibliographical,
photographic, and archival information on the 1,885 former Senators. It
edits for publication historically significant transcripts and minutes
of selected Senate committees and party organizations, and conducts
oral history interviews with key Senate staff. The photo historian
maintains a collection of approximately 40,000 still pictures that
includes photographs and illustrations of Senate committees and most
former Senators. The Office develops and maintains all historical
material on the Senate website.
Editorial Projects
Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1774-2005.--A new
edition of the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress has just
been published. In May 2003, both houses of Congress adopted H. Con.
Res. 138, authorizing printing of an updated and expanded edition of
the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-2005.
The first edition of this indispensable reference source was published
in 1859; the most recent edition appeared in 1989. This latest
publication is the 16th edition. Since 1989, the assistant historian
has added many new biographical sketches, expanded bibliography
entries, and revised and updated most of the database's nearly 2,000
Senate and vice-presidential entries. In preparation for the 2005
edition, the assistant historian and historical editor updated the
Congress-by-Congress listing of members through the 108th Congress and
updated the listing of executive branch officers. The assistant
historian completed the editing and proofing of all Senate-related
information, coordinating with the House Office of History and
Preservation and the Government Printing Office. The assistant
historian also continues to edit and update all existing information
for the online version of the Biographical Directory (http://
bioguide.congress.gov) to allow for expanded search capabilities,
maintain accuracy, and incorporate new information and scholarship.
Administrative History of the Senate.--Throughout 2005, the
assistant historian continued to research and write chapters of this
historical account of the Senate's administrative evolution. This study
traces the development of the offices of the Secretary of the Senate
and Sergeant at Arms, considers 19th and 20th century reform efforts
that resulted in reorganization and professionalization of Senate
staff, and looks at how the Senate's administrative structure has grown
and diversified over the past two centuries. In particular, during the
past year the assistant historian completed the work's pivotal third
chapter, which explores the Senate's administrative history from 1836
to 1861, when Asbury Dickins was Secretary of the Senate. During this
period, the first major administrative reform effort was launched,
resulting in an expanded and more professional work force.
``The Idea of the Senate''.--For more than two centuries, Senators,
journalists, scholars, and other first-hand observers have attempted to
describe the uniqueness of the Senate, emphasizing the body's
fundamental strengths, as well as areas for possible reform. From James
Madison in 1787 to Robert Caro in 2002, sharp-eyed analysts have left
memorable accounts that may help modern Senators better understand the
Senate in its historical context. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
Allen Drury's 1943 comment about the Senate of his day--``There is a
vast area of casual ignorance concerning this lively and appealing
body''--retains a ring of truth for modern times. The ``Idea of the
Senate'' project will identify up to 40 major statements by
knowledgeable observers. Each of the 40 brief chapters in the resulting
publication will include a 500-word quotation and an essay that
identifies the background of the observer and places the quotation in
the context of the times in which it was written.
``Rules of the United States Senate, Since 1789''.--In 1980,
Parliamentarian Emeritus Floyd M. Riddick, at the direction of the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, prepared a publication
containing the eight separate codes of rules that the Senate adopted
between 1789 and 1979. In the early 1990s, the Senate Historical
Office, in consultation with Dr. Riddick, developed a project to
incorporate an important feature not contained in the 1980 publication.
Beyond simply listing the eight codes of rules, our goal is to show how
the Senate's current rules have evolved from earlier versions,
including rules both added and dropped between codifications. Some
modern Senate rules have their origins in the first code of rules that
the Senate adopted in 1789. Many of those first rules can be traced to
even earlier times--to rules Thomas Jefferson prepared in 1776 for the
Continental Congress. This work, to be completed within the coming
year, will contain the original text of all standing rules, beginning
with those the Senate adopted on April 16, 1789. It will reprint each
of the seven subsequent codifications (1806, 1820, 1828, 1868, 1877,
1884, and 1979) along with changes adopted between each codification.
Appendices will contain related rules of the Continental Congresses,
the Maryland General Assembly (1777), the Senate of the Confederate
States of America, Senate Impeachment Rules from 1798, and the
abandoned joint rules of Congress. Footnotes and sidebars will provide
brief explanations of the reasons for significant changes.
``Senate Stories: 200 Notable Days, 1787-2002''.--This publication
will present 200 brief stories featuring the Senate's best-loved and
most notorious former members, its triumphs and tragedies, and some
lesser-known moments that reflect the Senate's character as the
``World's Greatest Deliberative Body.'' Readers will learn how the
Senate was created, who became the first cabinet member to be confirmed
(and the first rejected), how decorum was not always strictly
maintained on the Senate floor, and how a certain Senator's toupee
signaled a change in the seasons. These 200 historical essays are drawn
from a larger number prepared during an eight-year period for weekly
delivery to an audience of several dozen senators. Those Senators
appeared to appreciate these essays for adding historical context to
their daily responsibilities. Historical Office staff researched and
compiled sources and photographs for each essay to be included in the
publication.
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC).--In
2005, Historical Office staff assisted with preparations and editing of
printed materials, followed up on questions and reference requests
forwarded to them by the JCCIC, made minor changes to the Web site as
needed, and assisted the Recording Studio with preparing and editing
text for the 2005 Inaugural video. Staff participated in an on-camera
interview, responding to historical questions about presidential
inaugurations, for use in the Inaugural video. Staff continues to
maintain the Inaugural website as stewards until the next JCCIC forms
in 2008.
Oral History Program
The Historical Office conducts a series of oral history interviews
that provide personal recollections of various Senate careers. This
year, interviews were completed with Leonard Weiss, former staff
director of the Governmental Affairs Committee; Timothy Wineman, Senate
Financial Clerk; and Dennis W. Brezina, former staff member of the
Subcommittee on Government Research. Several interviews are in
progress, and the interviews of Chuck Ludlam, former staff member of
the Separation of Powers Subcommittee, have been processed and opened
for research. The complete transcripts of 20 interviews have also been
posted on the Senate's Web site.
Member Services
Members' Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The Senate
archivist continued the program of assisting members' offices with
planning for the preservation of their permanently valuable records,
emphasizing the importance of managing electronic records, and
transferring valuable records to a home-state repository. The archivist
began revising the Records Management Handbook for United States
Senators and Their Archival Repositories. The archivist continued to
work with staff from all repositories receiving senatorial collections
to ensure adequacy of documentation and the transfer of appropriate
records with adequate finding aids. The archivist provided briefing
materials to transition offices and met with staff. The archivist
conducted a seminar on records management for Senate offices and
participated in the Senate Services Fair. The archivist participated in
a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Association of Centers
for the Study of Congress on ``Developing a Collaborative Approach to
Web-Based Content (for congressional papers collections),'' and also in
the second symposium sponsored by the John H. Brademas Center for the
Study of Congress at New York University, which focused on the
development of a policy for the papers of public officials. The
archivist organized and led a session on procedures for handling
classified documents that are discovered in members' collections after
they have been donated to an archival repository. This was presented at
the Society of American Archivists annual meeting.
Committee Records Management and Disposition Assistance.--The
Senate archivist provided each committee with staff briefings, record
surveys, guidance on preservation of information in electronic systems,
and instructions for the transfer of permanently valuable records to
the National Archives' Center for Legislative Archives. 2,966 cubic
feet of Senate records were transferred to the Archives. The archivist
revised and published the Records Management Handbook for United States
Senate Committees. Part of the revision entailed developing, with
assistance from National Archives (NARA) staff, a protocol for transfer
of electronic records to NARA's Center for Legislative Archives. The
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and its
archivist developed and successfully implemented a project using this
protocol to appraise and transfer electronic records to the archives.
The archivist worked with the Budget Committee to find professional
assistance to perform a records survey and to begin comprehensive
archival processing of older transfers for the purpose of assuming
better intellectual control over their historical collection. The
archival assistant continued to provide processing assistance to
committees and administrative offices in need of basic help with
noncurrent files. The archival assistant produced committee archiving
reports in Access database format covering records' transfers for the
past year. The archivist will use these reports in 2006 to provide
committees with suggestions for improvements. The archivist hosted a
tour and briefing for chief clerks at the Center for Legislative
Archives.
``Senate Historical Minutes''.--The Senate historian continued a
nine-year series of ``Senate Historical Minutes,'' begun in 1997 at the
request of the Senate Democratic Leader. In 2005, the historian
prepared and delivered a ``Senate Historical Minute'' at 21 Senate
Democratic Conference weekly meetings. These 400-word Minutes were
designed to enlighten members about significant events and
personalities associated with the Senate's institutional development.
More than 200 Minutes are available as a feature on the Senate website.
Photographic Collections
The photo historian created the first ever published pictorial
directory of Senators, Faces of the Senate: A Pictorial Directory of
United States Senators, 1789-2005. Since the First Congress convened in
1789, 1,885 men and women have served in the United States Senate. This
invaluable reference source contains images of all but 46 of them. The
images in the volume are arranged alphabetically by state, and further
divided within each state by Senate class. This one-of-a-kind
publication offers a unique visual representation of the collective
Senate from its inception to the present. Prompted by the desire to
make the Faces pictorial directory as complete as possible, the photo
historian sought and acquired images of nearly 100 former Senators not
previously represented in the Office's collection. Many of these newly
acquired images were obtained from various universities, historical
societies, and state libraries throughout the nation. More than half of
the images came from a collection of late 19th- and early 20th-century
photo scrapbooks that were donated to the Office at the end of 2004.
These scrapbooks were inventoried and copy negatives were made of many
of the images contained therein.
The photo historian continued to provide timely photographic
reference service, while cataloging, digitizing, re-housing, and
expanding the Office's 40,000-item image collection. The office's
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and vital electronic records were
updated. As a contribution to the office's educational outreach
efforts, two online photographic exhibits were created for the Senate
website--Capitol Scenes: 1900-1950 and World War II: The Senate and the
Nation's Capital. A third online exhibit, The Senate Through the Ages,
has been created and will be available on the website shortly. A number
of Senators' offices were inspired by the Faces pictorial directory to
display the images of all the Senators who had served from their state.
The photo historian worked with the offices on these projects,
providing the images and assisting in the design of the displays.
Educational Outreach
Much of the Senate Historical Office's correspondence with the
general public takes place through the Senate's website, which has
become an indispensable source for information about the institution.
The assistant historian and the Historical Office staff maintain and
frequently update the Web site with timely reference and historical
information. In 2005, the Historical Office received an estimated 1,500
inquiries from the general public, the press, students, family
genealogists, congressional staffers, and academics, through the public
e-mail address provided on the Senate website. The diverse nature of
their questions reflects the varied levels of interest in how the
Senate functions, its institutional history, and the individuals who
have served in the body.
In coordination with the Office of Education and Training,
Historical Office staff provided seminars on the general history of the
Senate, Senate committees, women senators, Senate floor leadership, and
the Constitution. Office staff also participated in seminars and
briefings for specially scheduled groups. The Senate historian
addressed a conference in the United Kingdom entitled, ``What Are
Senates For?'' Sponsored by the University of London's Institute for
Historical Research, this symposium was designed to explore further
reform opportunities for the House of Lords by examining the experience
of legislative upper houses in other western nations. The associate
historian delivered the keynote address to the Northern Great Plains
History Conference in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, participated in a workshop
on ``Congress and History'' at Washington University in St. Louis, and
was part of a panel discussion on ``The American Congress'' at the
National Archives and Records Administration.
Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.--This eleven-member
permanent committee, established in 1990 by Public Law 101-509, meets
twice a year to advise Congress and the Archivist of the United States
on the management and preservation of the records of Congress. Its
Senate-related membership includes appointees of the majority and
minority leaders; the Secretary of the Senate, who serves as committee
vice chair during the 109th Congress; and the Senate historian. The
Historical Office provided support services for the Committee's June
and December meetings.
Capitol Visitor Center Exhibition Content Committee.--Staff
historians completed their assignments in drafting text for displays in
the exhibition gallery of the Capitol Visitor Center. During 2005, the
Office assisted Donna Lawrence Productions and Cortina Productions with
background material for several visitor orientation films and
interactive visual displays.
Association of Centers for the Study of Congress.--In May, the
Historical Office assisted with the third annual meeting of the
Association of Centers for the Study of Congress. Among the centers
involved in this promising new organization are those associated with
the public careers of former Senators Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Everett
Dirksen, Thomas Dodd, Wendell Ford, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell,
John Stennis, and John Glenn.
7. human resources
The Office of Human Resources was established in June 1995 as a
result of the Congressional Accountability Act. The Office focuses on
developing and implementing human resources policies, procedures, and
programs for the Office of the Secretary of the Senate that fulfill the
legal requirements of the workplace and complement the organization's
strategic goals and values.
This includes recruiting and staffing; providing guidance and
advice to managers and staff; training; performance management; job
analysis; compensation planning, design, and administration; leave
administration; records management; employee handbooks and manuals;
internal grievance procedures; employee relations and services; and
organizational planning and development.
The Human Resources Office also administers the Secretary's Public
Transportation Subsidy program and the Summer Intern Program that
offers college students the opportunity to gain valuable skills and
experience in a variety of Senate support offices.
Classification and Compensation Review Completed
HR conducted a complete classification and compensation study. This
work product is the single largest program to come from this office
since its inception. The classification study includes a comprehensive
collection of current job classifications and specifications for every
position in the Office. Other federal agencies are looking to move from
the GS schedule to this concept of broad banding, which allows greater
flexibility in ``pay for performance'' models rather than simple
graduated steps.
Policies and Procedures
The Secretary, through HR, is updating and revising the Employee
Handbook of the Office of the Secretary. With nuances in employment law
and other advances, the policies are being reviewed, coordinated with
counsel, revised and updated. An entirely new updated Employee Handbook
will be available in 2006.
Employee Self-Service (ESS)
HR has implemented use of the Employee Self-Service system (ESS)
which is a secure system enabling Secretary staff to review and update
personnel information pertaining to addresses, phone numbers and
emergency contact information. Employees are now able to review and
correct information to their electronic personnel records maintained by
HR. Staff and managers can also access leave records and reports
through this system. The ability to review and update this information
is instrumental to maintaining accurate contact lists for emergencies
or other contingencies.
ESS is a useful communication method among a large staff. It is
incumbent upon the department to find ways to solicit the feedback,
suggestions and insight of staff in an effort to continually improve
processes and procedures. One way we have incorporated this effort is
in the ESS system. There is a ``suggestion box'' component to this
service that allows staff to anonymously send a message to HR with a
concern or suggestion, to be considered by HR and/or the Executive
Office.
Recruitment and Retention of Staff
HR has the ongoing task of advertising new vacancies or positions,
screening applicants, interviewing candidates and assisting with all
phases of the hiring process. HR will coordinate with the Sergeant at
Arms HR to post all SAA and Secretary vacancies on the Senate intranet
so that the larger Senate community may access the posting from their
own offices.
HR assists in advising on performance-related issues and meets with
staff and supervisors to develop performance improvement plans. Such
plans help in both the development of a productive staff member and in
making disciplinary recommendations when necessary.
Outreach
HR conducted the first Elder Care Fair that was made available to
all Senate staff on October 24, 2005. The event provided an opportunity
for staff to learn about and access local and nationwide services
available to assist the elderly and those responsible for their care.
Comprehensive resource manuals were created and distributed
throughout the Senate and have been requested by specific offices,
committees, and departments. The goal is to conduct an Elder Care Fair
every other year.
Training
In conjunction with the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment, HR
works to prepare training for department heads and staff. Some of the
training topics include Sexual Harassment, Interviewing Skills,
Conducting Background Checks, Providing Feedback to Employees and Goal
Setting.
Interns and Fellows
HR coordinates both the Secretary's internship program and the
Heinz Fellowship program. From advertising, conducting needs analyses,
communicating, screening, placing and following up with all interns, HR
keeps a close connection with the interns to make the internship most
beneficial to them and the organization.
8. information systems
The staff of the Department of Information Systems provides
technical hardware and software support for the Office of the Secretary
of the Senate. Information Systems staff also interface closely with
the application and network development groups within the Sergeant at
Arms (SAA), the Government Printing Office (GPO), and outside vendors
on technical issues and joint projects. The Department provides
computer related support for all LAN-based servers within the Office of
the Secretary of the Senate. Information Systems staff provide direct
application support for all software installed workstations, initiate
and guide new technologies, and implement next generation hardware and
software solutions.
Mission Evaluation
The primary mission of the Information Systems Department is to
continue to provide the highest level of customer satisfaction and
computer support for all departments within the Office of the Secretary
of the Senate. Emphasis is placed on the creation and transfer of
legislation to outside departments and agencies, meeting Disbursing
office financial responsibilities to the member offices, and office
mandated and statutory obligations.
Staffing and Functionality
No incremental staffing changes occurred in fiscal year 2005. The
staffing level has remained unchanged since 1998, although functional
responsibilities for support in other departments have expanded.
Information System staff functionality was expanded by moving the IT
structure from a local LAN support structure to an enterprise IT
support process. Improved diagnostic practices were adopted to expand
support across all Secretary Departments. Several departments, namely
Disbursing, Chief Counsel for Employment, Office of Public Records,
Page School, Senate Security, Stationery and Gift Shop previously
employed dedicated information technology staff resident within the
offices. Public Records, Stationery, and Gift Shop remote support was
added in 2005. Information Systems personnel continue to provide a
multi-tiered escalated hardware and software support for these offices.
For information security reasons, departments have implemented
isolated computer systems, unique applications, and isolated local area
networks. The Secretary of the Senate network is a closed local area
network to all offices within the Senate. Information Systems staff
continue to provide a common level of hardware and software integration
for these networks, and for the shared resources of interdepartmental
networking. Information System staff continue to actively participate
in all new project design and implementation within the Secretary of
the Senate operations.
Improvements to the Secretary's LANs
The Senate chose Windows NT as the standard network operating
system in 1997. The continuing support strategy is to enhance existing
hardware and software supports provided by the Information Systems
Department, and augment that support with assistance from the SAA
whenever required. The network supports approximately 300 users'
accounts and patron accounts in the Capitol, the Senate Hart, Russell,
and Dirksen Buildings, and the Page School. The total number of
hardware servers retired in 2005 was 16.
Fiscal Year 2005 Summary Results
The Active Directory and Messaging Architecture (ADMA) marks the
first time that all Secretary IT equipment is operating in a pure
client/server relationship. The IT infrastructure foundation is now
positioned for scaleable and expanded growth in all Secretary offices.
The ADMA project implementation provided a central point of IT
system administration, and the opportunity to implement enterprise wide
solutions, namely Outlook Web Access and remote messaging, offsite
access to Webster, LIS, and newswire services.
Improvements incorporated in the Amendment Tracking Project now
provide submitted as well as proposed amendments scanned for all Member
offices.
Microsoft released 37 critical security updates for each
workstation in 2005. Information System staff incorporated new
techniques to test and deploy these updates to all systems. Coupled
with a secure ``wake-up-on-LAN'' technology, workstations that are
turned off can now securely powered up on the weekend, security updates
installed, turned off, and ready for ``business as usual'' on Monday
morning.
Active Directory and Message Infrastructure Project (ADMA)
The Microsoft Outlook E-Mail client solution is referred to as the
Messaging Architecture and the replacement of the existing Windows NT
server installed base is referred to as the Active Directory project.
The ADMA plan involved all staff employees and was integrated into one
central Active Directory Secretary Enterprise in 2005. Each department
(except the Disbursing Office and Chief Counsel for Employment) is now
structured as an organizational unit within the new enterprise.
In September 2005, phase one was completed, and phase two
(Disbursing) was completed in December 2005.
There are several benefits to the implementation of the ADMA:
--All secure-id and Passface users have remote access to web-mail,
Congress.gov, CRS, and news wire services;
--Access to web based services is available from all public and
private internet locations;
--Centralized system administrative processes;
--Higher level of active file sharing and improved collaboration
between different business functions; and
--Higher levels of messaging functionality during COOP events.
Clearly, the implementation of ADMA for the Secretary involved
numerous resources on the part of both the Sergeant at Arms and the
Secretary's offices. The importance of this single project provides the
``base'' for all future IT related projects in the coming years.
Legislative Operation Upgrades
The technical staff collaborated with the SAA application
development software personnel to complete the transition of the
Amendment Tracking System workflow process to a web-based solution.
This redesign facilitates the scanning of submitted and proposed
amendments for all Senate offices.
Stationery Room Renovation Procurement
The Stationery Room awarded a contract to replace the existing
hardware servers in August 2005. This process had not been updated in
over ten years.
An enhancement to the Stationery Room's services incorporated a
Metro Subsidy system which allows Senate offices to request allotted
subsidies in advance using a web-browser based connection. SAA provided
the web-entry portal at PSQ, and the Secretary's office installed the
necessary SQL database server at PSQ. Hardware servers maintained
jointly by SAA and the Secretary were initiated in 2005 to provide this
advance purchase request.
Curator Project Management Software
In May 2004 a project requirement surfaced to provide the Curator's
office with a method to create, edit, publish, and distribute
information relative to numerous contracts and outside vendor projects.
After evaluating these business requirements, the IT solution
implemented now provides multi-user collaboration software to track and
monitor these numerous projects.
In parallel, working with SAA Research and Development, this
solution was also deemed valuable to other Senate offices.
Implementation of this package allows staff to communicate and share
files regardless of location. A Senate wide rollout is expected in
2005.
9. interparliamentary services
The Office of Interparliamentary Services (IPS) has completed its
24th year of operation as a department of the Secretary of the Senate.
IPS is responsible for administrative, financial, and protocol
functions for all interparliamentary conferences in which the Senate
participates by statute, for interparliamentary conferences in which
the Senate participates on an ad hoc basis, and for special delegations
authorized by the Majority and/or Minority Leaders. The office also
provides appropriate assistance as requested by other Senate
delegations.
The statutory interparliamentary conferences are: NATO
Parliamentary Assembly; Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group;
Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group; British-American
Interparliamentary Group; United States-Russia Interparliamentary
Group; and United States-China Interparliamentary Group.
In June, the 44th Annual Meeting of the Mexico-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group was held in Rhode Island. Arrangements for
this successful event were handled by the IPS staff.
As in previous years, all foreign travel authorized by the
Leadership is arranged by the IPS staff. In addition to delegation
trips, IPS provided assistance to individual Senators and staff
traveling overseas. Senators and staff authorized by committees for
foreign travel continue to call upon this office for assistance with
passports, visas, travel arrangements, and reporting requirements.
IPS receives and prepares for printing the quarterly financial
reports for foreign travel from all committees in the Senate. In
addition to preparing the quarterly reports for the Majority Leader,
the Minority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore, IPS staff also
assists staff members of Senators and committees in completing the
required reports.
Interparliamentary Services maintains regular contact with the
Office of the Chief of Protocol, Department of State, and with foreign
embassy officials. Official foreign visitors are frequently received in
this office and assistance is given to individuals as well as to groups
by the IPS staff. The staff continues to work closely with other
offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms in
arranging programs for foreign visitors. In addition, IPS is frequently
consulted by individual Senators' offices on a broad range of protocol
questions. Occasional questions come from state officials or the
general public regarding Congressional protocol.
On behalf of the Leadership, the staff arranges receptions in the
Senate for Heads of State, Heads of Government, Heads of Parliaments,
and parliamentary delegations. Required records of expenditures on
behalf of foreign visitors under authority of Public Law 100-71 are
maintained in the Office of Interparliamentary Services.
Planning is underway for the 46th Annual Meeting of the Canada-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group, which will be held in the United States in
2006. Advance work, including site inspection, will be undertaken for
the Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group and British American
Parliamentary Group meetings to be held in the United States in 2007.
Preparations are also underway for the spring and fall sessions of the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
10. library
The Senate Library provides legislative, legal, business, and
general information services to the United States Senate. The library's
collection encompasses legislative documents that date from the
Continental Congress in 1774; current and historic executive and
judicial branch materials; and an extensive book collection on American
politics, history, and biography. Other resources include a wide array
of online systems used to provide nonpartisan, confidential, timely,
and accurate information services to the Senate. The library also
authors content for three websites: Legislative Information Service,
Senate.gov, and Webster.
Notable Achievements
Information inquiries increased 26 percent.
LIS nomination records enhanced with links to 1,074 full-text
hearings.
Senate Support Facility opened, providing archival storage for
library collections.
Project undertaken to provide electronic access to the Senate
Historical Office's 3,000-volume book collection.
180 Senate staff were provided LIS instruction.
Information Services
Legal, legislative, business, and general research are the primary
components of the Senate Library's mission. The two categories of
patron requests are traditional requests resulting from walk-ins,
telephone calls, faxes, or e-mails, and requests directed to library-
produced web resources. As content providers to three websites--
Senate.gov, the Legislative Information System (LIS), and Webster--the
library's work flow and procedures, staff skills, and information
products have changed significantly and permanently. XML technology has
significantly and positively impacted web work flow and work product.
As a result, the library can meet the Senate community's ever-
increasing reliance on technology with accurate, pertinent, and current
information in an even more timely and cost-effective manner. The
response to the library's commitment to web initiatives was a 26
percent increase in inquiries from the previous year. This marked the
second consecutive year of double-digit increases.
INFORMATION SERVICES TO THE SENATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional Web
Year Inquiries Inquiries Total Increase from Previous Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005........................................... 33,080 823,076 856,156 26 percent
2004........................................... 33,750 602,236 635,986 38 percent
2003........................................... 46,234 348,198 394,432 Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the activities supporting research also reflected
significant increases, including 4,015 information packages delivered
(+23 percent) and 133,335 photocopies (+13.75 percent). The number of
loaned books and documents increased 27 percent to 2,752 and 330 new
borrowing accounts were established, bringing the total to 2,667. Other
important contributors to the across-the-board increases were the
October 2004 Senate-wide release of the library's online catalog, which
recorded nearly 4,000 user visits, the interactive New Books List, and
the new e-mail book ordering service. In addition, more than 4,400
pages were produced from the library's extensive microform collection
of newspapers, journals, and congressional documents.
Significant Projects
Supreme Court Nominations
A web-available history documenting the 158 Supreme Court
nominations submitted to the Senate since 1789 was compiled and
published. This unique web document features confirmation chronologies
and embedded links to voting records, nominee biographies, and essays
regarding special circumstances. The document has been published on
Senate.gov, the Legislative Information System, and the Senate
Library's Home Page on Webster.
A related Supreme Court project provides web access to the text of
confirmation hearings conducted since 1971 and Senate executive reports
issued since 1993. These two categories of important documents were
provided through collaboration with the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Congressional Research Service (CRS), Government Printing Office (GPO),
and Library of Congress Law Library.
Senate Hearings on LIS
The Legislative Information System nomination reports were enhanced
with the addition of 886 Senate hearing numbers, the key to identifying
a specific transcript in a library or at GPO.
A related LIS project linked the hearing numbers to the full text
of hearing transcripts at GPO Access. The June release of this new
feature on LIS was followed by a November release on THOMAS. To date,
this cooperative project between the Library of Congress and the Senate
Library has established 1,074 full-text links to Senate committee
hearings.
Appropriations Legislation
The library's popular Appropriations Legislation series documents
the history of appropriations measures since fiscal year 1993. The
histories were significantly improved with the addition of links to
full-text transcripts of nearly 200 Senate Appropriations' hearings. An
additional feature that links House hearing information to the web-
based library catalog is available to Senate staff through the
library's Webster site. Simultaneous dynamic publishing to the
histories on Webster, LIS, and Senate.gov was designed by the Web
Technology Office and significantly improved editing procedures.
Educational Services
LIS Savvy classes, a new library outreach program, were introduced
in March. The one-hour classroom sessions provided 180 Senate staff
with expert LIS training from an experienced research librarian. In
addition to the scheduled monthly sessions, six more classes, including
a teleconference training session, were held to meet the demand. LIS
Savvy classes complement the library's responsibility as the Senate's
official Help Desk for commercial and legislative databases.
In addition, 204 Senate staff attended library-sponsored seminars
and events including Services of the Senate Library Seminars, the
Senate Services Fair, Senate Page School tours, state staff
orientations, and the annual National Library Week reception and book
talk.
During 2005, the library hosted 179 visitors from graduate schools,
professional organizations, and federal libraries. The tours included
Catholic University and University of North Carolina graduate students;
library staff from the Supreme Court, Central Intelligence Agency, and
Library of Congress; D.C. Special Library Association members; and
participants in the annual GPO Depository Library Conference.
Technical Services
Acquisitions
The library received 11,988 (+2.5 percent) new acquisitions in
2005. Of this number, 7,520 were congressional documents, 3,588
executive branch publications, and the remaining 880 items were books
related to politics, American history, or biography.
As a participant in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP),
the library receives selected categories of legislative, executive, and
judicial branch publications from GPO. In 2005, the library acquired
11,108 items through FDLP. The trend to electronically distribute
government publications has significantly reduced the overall number of
paper documents issued; GPO reports that 95 percent of government
documents are now issued electronically. The library responded to this
trend by hosting 16,938 electronic catalog links, the majority of which
are to government documents.
A major project is the ongoing title-by-title evaluation of
executive branch publications. During the fifth year of the project,
1,462 superseded or surplus items were withdrawn from the collection
and 628 of these items were donated to requesting federal libraries.
The project's final phase will improve organization and access by
integrating the retained documents into the book collection. Toward
this end, 379 documents were reclassified and merged into the larger
primary collection.
Cataloging
The library's productive cataloging staff draws on years of
experience to produce and maintain a catalog of more than 166,912
bibliographic items. During the year, 10,385 items were added to the
catalog including 5,179 new titles (+10 percent), and 5,689 items were
withdrawn. A total of 28,928 maintenance transactions contributed to
the catalog's content, currency, and record integrity. The library also
contributed 664 personal names and congressional terms to the Name
Authorities Cooperative program (NACO) at the Library of Congress. That
number is exceptional and underscores cataloging skills and the very
special nature of the Senate's collections. As an international
authority, NACO's institutional participants create shared cataloging
resources for the larger library community.
Staff addressed the longstanding issue of tracking committee
hearings. There is often a three to six-month period between the date a
hearing is held and publication of the official transcript. To date,
383 records have been created for yet-to-be published hearings. Senate
staff and researchers are now able to identify both published and
unpublished Senate hearings by searching the library catalog.
Other cataloging projects included assisting the Senate Historical
Office in providing electronic access to their 3,000 volume book
collection. Once completed, the entire collection will be searchable
through the library's online catalog. Since May, records for the first
638 titles have been completed.
Web-Based Catalog
The library's online catalog, containing 166,912 bibliographic
records, was released Senate-wide on October 25, 2004. During the first
operational year, Senate staff searched the catalog on nearly 4,000
occasions. The public catalog is updated nightly to guarantee that
Senate staff will retrieve accurate and timely information on library
holdings. The holdings for electronic journals and government-issued
serials, including annual reports and recurring documents, were added
to the catalog in 2005.
A four-month beta test of the latest catalog upgrade was followed
by a June installation of the new 3.3 version. The beta testing
provided an opportunity to recommend search and display improvements.
Catalog users will see enhanced full-text search capability with
system-generated equivalent and substitute terms. For more precision,
exact-match searching, which provides more focused results, is also
available. The catalog improvements have significantly integrated the
majority of library resources onto the Secretary's network.
The library utilizes a statistical and analytical tool, to process
raw data from the public catalog web server. This valuable management
tool provides information on aggregate catalog usage and will result in
improved design and service.
Offsite Storage, Collection Maintenance, and Binding
The Senate Support Facility was completed in December 2005 and will
provide long-term, preservation-quality storage for library
collections. The library's designated area in the warehouse provides
storage for 56,000 volumes, and has on-site security, fire suppression,
museum-standard humidity and temperature controls, air filtration, and
telecommunications. A collection of 25,000 historic and rare
congressional documents will be transferred to the SSF in 2006.
Preservation of the library's 18th and 19th century collections
resulted in several initiatives, including a volume-by-volume
collection survey that will identify those titles requiring
conservation, repair, or replacement. To prevent the growth of mold and
mildew, routine monitoring ensures that strict temperature and humidity
levels are maintained. To guarantee future availability and
preservation, GPO bound 550 library volumes for the permanent
collection.
Administrative
Budget
Budget reductions in 2005 totaled $2,544.32. Nine years of budget
monitoring has resulted in reductions totaling $73,484.18. Continual
review of purchases has eliminated materials not meeting the Senate's
current information needs. This oversight is also critical in
offsetting cost increases for core materials and for acquiring new
materials. The goal is to provide the highest service level using the
latest technologies and best resources in the most cost-effective
manner.
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
The addition of a laptop computer significantly improved the
library's ability to meet COOP-related and special event
responsibilities. With added remote access to the Senate.gov content
management system (CMS), staff can efficiently update the floor
schedule. To meet COOP requirements for an alternate work site, the
library's warehouse location will provide staff areas, a core reference
collection, and access to the Senate network and telecommunications
systems.
Unum, Newsletter of the Office of the Secretary of the
Senate
Unum, the Secretary's quarterly newsletter produced by Senate
Library staff since October 1997, is an historical record of
accomplishments, events, and personnel in the Office of the Secretary
of the Senate. Three issues were published during 2005, including a 16-
page commemorative issue honoring the 200th anniversary of Constantino
Brumidi's birth. In addition, Senate-wide access to each of the thirty-
seven issues was made available through Webster and the library's
catalog.
Major Library Goals for 2006
Relocate 25,000 volumes to the Senate Support Facility.
Redesign the library's Webster site.
Identify a COOP-designated reference collection for the Senate
Support Facility.
Continue the review and reclassification of executive branch
materials.
Add Senate hearing numbers to LIS status reports for the 1987-2000
time period.
Plan for server upgrades in preparation for future catalog
requirements.
SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005--ACQUISITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books Government Documents Congressional Publications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports/ Total
Ordered Received Paper Fiche Hearings Prints Bylaw Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.............................................. 21 65 234 86 206 19 48 342 1,000
February............................................. 22 51 208 44 276 13 81 242 915
March................................................ 20 81 397 142 243 28 74 273 1,238
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter.................................... 63 197 839 272 725 60 203 857 3,153
==================================================================================================
April................................................ 18 78 161 35 214 35 53 204 780
May.................................................. 34 98 122 42 183 27 80 367 919
June................................................. 27 102 159 396 217 16 72 336 1,298
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter.................................... 79 278 442 473 614 78 205 907 2,997
==================================================================================================
July................................................. 50 61 170 51 249 21 65 292 909
August............................................... 21 75 120 78 276 25 58 324 956
September............................................ 33 58 190 201 235 18 148 268 1,118
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter.................................... 104 194 480 330 760 64 271 884 2,983
==================================================================================================
October.............................................. 32 82 187 76 283 17 68 293 1,006
November............................................. 48 74 215 49 256 13 56 350 1,013
December............................................. 20 55 174 51 288 20 81 167 836
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter.................................... 100 211 576 176 827 50 205 810 2,855
==================================================================================================
2005 Total..................................... 346 880 2,337 1,251 2,926 252 884 3,458 11,988
2004 Total..................................... 225 716 2,329 985 3,180 217 1,171 2,955 11,698
==================================================================================================
Percent Change....................................... 53.78 22.91 .34 27.01 -7.99 16.13 -24.51 17.02 2.48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005--CATALOGING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliographic Records Cataloged
S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing Government Documents Congressional Publications Total
Numbers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Records
Added to Books Docs./ Cataloged
LIS Paper Fiche Electronic Hearings Prints Pubs./
Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January............................................. 42 22 6 17 13 353 4 51 466
February............................................ 20 21 2 7 5 258 5 75 373
March............................................... 121 25 16 7 2 315 5 114 484
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter................................... 183 68 24 31 20 926 14 240 1,323
===================================================================================================
April............................................... ......... 38 11 1 8 133 8 108 307
May................................................. 14 69 5 ......... 7 239 6 88 414
June................................................ 44 121 8 2 5 403 6 67 612
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter................................... 58 228 24 3 20 775 20 263 1,333
===================================================================================================
July................................................ 647 47 2 2 17 197 2 42 309
August.............................................. 81 30 6 7 21 158 ......... 103 325
September........................................... 28 49 8 1 7 246 1 98 410
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter................................... 756 126 16 10 45 601 3 243 1,044
===================================================================================================
October............................................. 19 30 2 8 4 478 ......... 49 571
November............................................ 46 21 5 2 33 337 ......... 64 462
December............................................ 26 27 14 3 9 262 2 129 446
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter................................... 91 78 21 13 46 1,077 2 242 1,479
===================================================================================================
2005 Total.................................... 1,088 500 85 57 131 3,379 39 988 5,179
2004 Total.................................... 240 425 51 41 37 3,329 164 662 4,709
===================================================================================================
Percent Change...................................... 353.33 17.65 66.67 39.02 254.05 1.50 -76.22 49.24 9.98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005--DOCUMENT DELIVERY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micrographics Photocopiers
Volumes Materials Facsimiles Center Pages Pages
Loaned Delivered Printed Printed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January........................................... 213 333 119 534 5,874
February.......................................... 220 271 79 234 10,258
March............................................. 254 384 143 479 8,567
-------------------------------------------------------------
1st Quarter................................. 687 988 341 1,247 24,699
=============================================================
April............................................. 202 357 75 151 12,082
May............................................... 254 280 36 401 9,886
June.............................................. 225 366 73 413 11,183
-------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Quarter................................. 681 1,003 184 965 33,151
=============================================================
July.............................................. 210 252 112 158 8,617
August............................................ 359 633 111 550 10,268
September......................................... 216 317 70 320 13,095
-------------------------------------------------------------
3rd Quarter................................. 785 1,202 293 1,028 31,980
=============================================================
October........................................... 207 317 76 374 8,986
November.......................................... 225 273 38 414 8,894
December.......................................... 167 232 69 378 5,625
-------------------------------------------------------------
4th Quarter................................. 599 822 183 1,166 23,505
=============================================================
2005 Total.................................. 2,752 4,015 1,001 4,406 113,335
2004 Total.................................. 2,165 3,265 1,904 4,522 99,636
=============================================================
Percent Change.................................... 27.11 22.97 -47.43 -2.57 13.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. senate page school
The United States Senate Page School exists to provide a smooth
transition from and to the students' home schools, providing those
students with as sound a program, both academically and experientially,
as possible during their stay in the nation's capital, within the
limits of the constraints imposed by the work situation.
Summary of Accomplishments
Accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
continues until December 31, 2008.
Two page classes successfully completed their semester curriculum.
Closing ceremonies were conducted on June 10, 2005, and January 20,
2006, the last day of school for each semester.
Orientation and course scheduling for the Spring 2005 and Fall 2005
pages were successfully completed. Needs of incoming students
determined the semester schedules.
Extended educational experiences were provided to pages. Twenty-one
field trips, five guest speakers, opportunities to compete in writing
and speaking contests, to play musical instruments and vocalize, and to
continue foreign language study with the aid of tutors of four
languages were all afforded pages. Six field trips to educational sites
and three speakers were provided for summer pages as an extension of
the page experience. National tests were administered for qualification
in scholarship programs as well.
Effective and efficient communication and coordination among the
Sergeant at Arms, Secretary, Party Secretaries, Page Program, and Page
School continues.
The evacuation plan and COOP have been reviewed and updated. Pages
and staff continue to practice evacuating to primary and secondary
sites.
The community service project embraced by pages and staff in 2002
continues. Items for gift packages were collected, assembled, and
shipped to military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. The pages
included letters of support to the troops participating in Operation
Enduring Freedom. Several recipients of gift packages wrote letters to
the pages expressing their appreciation.
Staff and pages participated in escape hood training.
Tutors were trained in evacuation procedures.
Updated materials and equipment were purchased. These included five
Titanium calculators, supplemental English textbooks, pre-calculus
textbooks, and political science and American government texts.
Faculty have pursued learning opportunities. One participated in
the Veterans History Project workshop at the Library of Congress;
another attended an AP Physics workshop, a Hazard Communications
seminar, the T3 International conference, and a PASCO workshop; and a
third attended the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
convention as well as the T3 International Conference and completed two
courses in his doctoral program.
All sinks in the science lab have been retrofitted with aspirators.
Summary of Plans
Our goals include:
--Individualized small group instruction and tutoring by teachers on
an as-needed basis will continue to be offered.
--Foreign language tutors will provide instruction in French,
Spanish, German, Latin, and Japanese.
--The focus of field trips will be sites of historic, political, and
scientific importance which complement the curriculum.
--Staff development options will include attendance at a technology
conference, seminars conducted by Education and Training, and
subject matter conferences conducted by national organizations.
--The community service project will continue.
12. printing and document services
The Office of Printing and Document Services (OPDS) serves as the
liaison to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for the Senate's
official printing, ensuring that all Senate printing is in compliance
with Title 44, U.S. Code as it relates to Senate documents, hearings,
committee prints and other official publications. The office assists
the Senate by coordinating, scheduling, delivering and preparing Senate
legislation, hearings, documents, committee prints and miscellaneous
publications for printing, and provides printed copies of all
legislation and public laws to the Senate and the public. In addition,
the office assigns publication numbers to all hearings, committee
prints, documents and other publications; orders all blank paper,
envelopes and letterhead for the Senate; and prepares page counts of
all Senate hearings in order to compensate commercial reporting
companies for the preparation of hearings.
Printing Services
During fiscal year 2005, the OPDS prepared 4,439 printing and
binding requisitions authorizing the GPO to print and bind the Senate's
work, exclusive of legislation and the Congressional Record. Since the
requisitioning done by the OPDS is central to the Senate's printing,
the office is uniquely suited to perform invoice and bid reviewing
responsibilities for Senate printing. As a result of this office's cost
accounting duties, OPDS is able to review and assure accurate GPO
invoicing as well as play an active role in helping to provide the best
possible bidding scenario for Senate publications.
In addition to processing requisitions, the Printing Services
Section coordinates proof handling, job scheduling and tracking for
stationery products, Senate hearings, Senate publications and other
miscellaneous printed products, as well as monitoring blank paper and
stationery quotas for each Senate office and committee. The office's
online blank paper ordering system, implemented in 2003, continues to
be a popular option for Senate staff. The OPDS also coordinates a
number of publications for other Senate offices, such as the Curator,
Historical Office, Disbursing, Legislative Clerk, and Senate Library in
addition to the U.S. Botanic Garden, U.S. Capitol Police and Architect
of the Capitol. These tasks include providing guidance for design,
paper selection, specifications for quotations, monitoring print
quality and distribution. Last year's major printing projects included
the Report of the Secretary of the Senate and the Semiannual Report of
the Architect of the Capitol. Current major projects for the office
include a full color version of the ``History of the U.S. Botanic
Garden 1861-1991'', ``Headlines in Senate History'' a compilation
prepared by the Senate Historical Office, and the ``U.S. Senate
Catalogue of Graphic Art'' a companion volume to the fine art
catalogue.
Hearing Billing Verification
Senate committees often use outside reporting companies to
transcribe their hearings. The OPDS processes billing verifications for
these transcription services ensuring that costs billed to the Senate
are accurate. During 2005, OPDS provided commercial reporting companies
and corresponding Senate committees a total of 949 billing
verifications of Senate hearings and business meetings, a 20 percent
increase over the previous year. Over 66,000 transcribed pages were
processed at a total billing cost of over $426,000.
The OPDS utilizes a program developed in conjunction with the
Sergeant at Arms Computer Division that provides more billing accuracy
and greater information gathering capacity, and adheres to the
guidelines established by the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration for commercial reporting companies to bill the Senate
for transcription services. During 2005 the office continued processing
all file transfers between committees and reporting companies
electronically, ensuring efficiency and accuracy. Department staff
continues training to apply today's expanding digital technology to
improve performance and services.
HEARING TRANSCRIPT AND BILLING VERIFICATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent change
2003 2004 2005 2005/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billing Verifications........................... 975 787 949 + 20.6
Average per Committee........................... 51.3 41.4 49.9 + 20.6
Total Transcribed Pages......................... 70,532 56,262 66,597 + 18.4
Average Pages/Committee......................... 3,712 2,961 3,505 + 18.4
Transcribed Pages Cost.......................... $461,807 $366,904 $426,815 + 16.3
Average Cost/Committee.......................... $24,288 $19,311 $22,463 + 16.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Service Center within the OPDS is staffed by
experienced GPO detailees that provide Senate committees and the
Secretary of the Senate's office with complete publishing services for
hearings, committee prints, and the preparation of the Congressional
Record. These services include keyboarding, proofreading, scanning, and
composition. The Service Center provides the best management of funds
available through the Congressional Printing and Binding Appropriation
as committees have been able to decrease or eliminate additional
overtime costs associated with the preparation of hearings.
Document Services
The Document Services Section coordinates requests for printed
legislation and miscellaneous publications with other departments
within the Secretary's Office, Senate committees, and the GPO. This
section ensures that the most current version of all material is
available, and that sufficient quantities are available to meet
projected demands. The Congressional Record, a printed record of Senate
and House floor proceedings, Extension of Remarks, Daily Digest and
miscellaneous pages, is one of the many printed documents provided by
the office on a daily basis. In addition to the Congressional Record,
the office processed and distributed 9,984 distinct legislative items
in 2005, including Senate and House bills, resolutions, committee and
conference reports and executive documents.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pages Printed:
For the Senate.............................................. 16,835 12,642 16,393
For the House............................................... 16,259 14,243 18,394
-----------------------------------------------
Total Pages Printed....................................... 33,094 26,885 34,787
===============================================
Copies Printed and Distributed:
To the Senate............................................... 307,917 227,192 295,366
To the House................................................ 441,735 331,165 397,327
To the Executive Branch and the Public...................... 449,750 323,957 356,770
-----------------------------------------------
Total Copies Printed and Distributed...................... 1,199,402 882,314 1,049,463
===============================================
Production Costs:
Senate Costs................................................ $9,886,805 $7,961,741 $6,640,823
House Costs................................................. $9,563,592 $9,026,893 $8,933,244
Other Costs................................................. $693,141 $555,010 $440,639
-----------------------------------------------
Total Production Costs.................................... $20,143,538 $17,543,644 $16,014,706
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although accessing legislative documents through the World Wide Web
is popular, there is still a strong need for printed documents. The
OPDS continually tracks demand for all classifications of Congressional
legislation and twice yearly adjusts the number of documents ordered in
each category to closely match demand. As a result, document waste has
decreased significantly over the past several years.
Customer Service
The primary responsibility of the OPDS is to provide services to
the Senate. However, the office also has a responsibility to the
general public, the press, and other government agencies. Requests for
legislative material are received at the walk-in counter, through the
mail, by fax, and electronically. In 2005, ordering of legislative
documents on-line increased by 260 percent. The Legislative Hot List
Link, where Members and staff can confirm arrival of printed copies of
the most sought after legislative documents, is popular. The site is
updated several times daily each time new documents arrive from GPO to
the Document Room. In addition, the office handled thousands of phone
calls pertaining to the Senate's official printing, document requests
and legislative questions. Recorded messages, fax, and e-mail operate
around the clock and are processed as they are received in addition to
mail requests. The office stresses prompt, courteous and accurate
answers to Senate and public requests.
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STATISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress/ Public FAX On-line Counter
Year session mail request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003..................................................... 108/1st 1,469 2,596 735 53,040
2004..................................................... 108/2nd 1,137 2,229 564 36,780
2005..................................................... 109/1st 1,369 2,326 1,464 40,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Demand Publication
The office produces additional copies of legislation as needed in
the DocuTech Service Center which is staffed by experienced GPO
detailees. On-demand printing and binding of bills and reports is
provided to Member offices and Senate committees. In March 2004, the
office coordinated the installation of a new, improved DocuTech high-
speed digital copier and production publisher. This machine decreases
the quantities of documents printed directly from GPO and increases the
ability to reprint documents on-demand on a larger scale. The DocuTech
is networked with GPO allowing print files to be sent back and forth
electronically. It also provides the advantage of quickly printing
necessary legislation for the Senate floor and other offices in the
event of a GPO COOP situation. During 2005, the DocuTech Center
produced 530 tasks for a total of 891,871 printed pages, a 35 percent
increase over the previous year.
Accomplishments and Future Goals
The OPDS experienced an increased volume of business during 2005.
Staff members attended both technical and management continuing
education courses, always working toward the goal of providing
customers, the Senate community and the public, with prompt and
accurate service. Future goals include working with the GPO on
improving job flow procedures. This includes sending customers
electronic proofs for print jobs, as well as developing new database
reports on serial set publications for the Senate Library and inventory
tracking of materials housed in the new Senate Materials Facility. The
Office of Printing and Document Services continues to seek new ways to
use technology to assist Members and staff with added services and
improved access to information.
13. office of public records
The Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains
records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the
Senate involving the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended; the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995; the Senate Code of Official Conduct:
Rule 34, Public Financial Disclosure; Rule 35, Senate Gift Rule
Filings; Rule 40, Registration of Mass Mailing; Rule 41, Political Fund
Designees; and Rule 41(6), Supervisor's Reports on Individuals
Performing Senate Services; and Foreign Travel Reports.
The office provides for the inspection, review, and reproduction of
these documents. From October 2004, through September 2005, the Public
Records office staff assisted more than 2,200 individuals seeking
information from reports filed with the office. This figure does not
include assistance provided by telephone, nor assistance given to
lobbyists attempting to comply with the provisions of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995. A total of 102,977 photocopies were sold in the
period. In addition, the office works closely with the Federal Election
Commission, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the Clerk of the
U.S. House of Representatives concerning the filing requirements of the
aforementioned Acts and Senate rules.
Fiscal Year 2005 Accomplishments
The office developed on-site scanning redundancy with other offices
under the Office of the Secretary. The office also modernized the on-
site public access software.
Automation Activities
During fiscal year 2005, the Senate Office of Public Records
developed the capacity to be able to scan time-sensitive documents in
the event of a breakdown of the principal scanner.
Federal Election Campaign Act, as Amended
The Act requires Senate candidates to file quarterly reports in a
non-election year. Filings totaled 4,447 documents containing 278,264
pages.
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
The Act requires semi-annual financial and lobbying activity
reports. As of September 30, 2005, 6,485 registrants represented 20,099
clients and employed 32,890 individuals who met the statutory
definition of ``lobbyist.'' The total number of lobbying registrations
and reports processed was 49,401.
Public Financial Disclosure
The filing date for Public Financial Disclosure Reports was May
16, 2005. The reports were available to the public and press by
Tuesday, June 14th. Copies were provided to the Select Committee on
Ethics and the appropriate State officials. A total of 2,900 reports
and amendments was filed containing 15,878 pages. There were 301
requests to review or receive copies of the documents.
Senate Rule 35 (Gift Rule)
The Senate Office of Public Records has received over 1,691 reports
during fiscal year 2005.
Registration of Mass Mailing
Senators are required to file mass mailings on a quarterly basis.
The number of pages was 558.
14. senate security
The Office of Senate Security (OSS) was established under the
Secretary of the Senate by Senate Resolution 243 (100th Congress, 1st
Session). The Office is responsible for the administration of
classified information programs in Senate offices and committees. In
addition, OSS serves as the Senate's liaison to the Executive Branch in
matters relating to the security of classified information in the
Senate. This report covers the period from January 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2005.
Personnel Security
Four hundred eighty-five Senate employees held one or more security
clearances at the end of 2005. This number does not include clearances
for employees of the Architect of the Capitol or for Congressional
Fellows assigned to Senate offices. OSS also processes these
clearances.
OSS processed 2,361 personnel security actions in 2005, a 24
percent increase from 2004. One hundred-seven investigations for new
security clearances were initiated last year, and 58 security
clearances were transferred from other agencies. Senate regulations, as
well as some Executive Branch regulations, require that individuals
granted Top Secret security clearances be reinvestigated at least every
five years. Staff holding Secret security clearances are reinvestigated
every ten years. During the past 12 months, reinvestigations were
initiated on 70 Senate employees. OSS processed 218 routine
terminations of security clearances during the reporting period and
transmitted 339 outgoing visit requests. The remainder of the personnel
security actions consisted of updating access authorizations and
compartments.
Overall, the average time required by the Department of Defense
(DOD) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for processing security
clearances (by means of investigation and adjudication) has increased
from 260 days to 332 days. The average time for investigations has
increased by 27.7 percent relative to 2004. Since the previous
increases for 2002 to 2003 was 66.7 percent and 2003 to 2004 was 25.6
percent, this represents a very significant increase in the last two
years. The average time for an initial investigation conducted and
adjudicated by the DOD is 305 days from the date that OSS requests the
investigation until the letter from DOD granting the clearance is
received in Senate Security. The average time for DOD initial
investigations increased 19.1 percent.
The periodic reinvestigation process averages 385 days, an increase
of 42.6 percent relative to 2004. The average time for an initial
investigation conducted by the FBI and adjudicated by DOD is 256 days,
while the periodic reinvestigation process averages 447 days. The FBI
investigation with DOD adjudication times represents an increase of 1.6
percent and 69.3 percent respectively.
Two hundred thirty-nine records checks were conducted at the
request of the FBI, ATF and OPM. One record check each was performed on
behalf of OPM and ATF. The remaining checks were performed for FBI.
This represents a 15.5 percent increase in records checks completed by
OSS.
Security Awareness
OSS conducted or hosted 75 security briefings for Senate staff.
Topics included: information security, counterintelligence, foreign
travel, security managers' responsibilities, office security
management, and introductory security briefings. This represents a 2
percent increase from 2004.
Document Control
OSS received or generated 2,792 classified documents consisting of
90,217 pages during calendar year 2005. This is a 0.4 percent decrease
in the number of documents received or generated in 2004. Additionally,
67,899 pages from 4,082 classified documents no longer required for the
conduct of official Senate business were destroyed. This represents a
52.9 percent increase in destruction. OSS transferred 700 documents
consisting of 26,625 pages to Senate offices or external agencies, down
40.9 percent from 2004. These figures do not include classified
documents received directly by the Appropriations Committee, Armed
Services Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and Select Committee
on Intelligence, in accordance with agreements between OSS and those
committees. Overall, Senate Security completed 7,575 document
transactions and handled over 184,742 pages of classified material in
2005, an increase of 40.9 percent.
Secure storage of classified material in the OSS vault was provided
for 107 Senators, committees, and support offices. This arrangement
minimizes the number of storage areas throughout the Capitol and Senate
office buildings, thereby affording greater security for classified
material.
Secure Meeting Facilities
OSS secure conference facilities were utilized on 919 occasions
during 2005. Use of OSS conference facilities decreased 19.7 percent
from 2004 levels. Five hundred forty-six meetings, briefings, or
hearings were conducted in OSS' three conference rooms. Of those,
twelve were ``All Senators'' briefings and six were hearings. OSS also
provided to Senators and staff secure telephones, secure computers,
secure facsimile machine, and secure areas for reading and production
of classified material on 373 occasions in 2005.
15. stationery room
The mission of the Keeper of the Stationery is:
--To sell stationery items for use by Senate offices and other
authorized legislative organizations.
--To select a variety of stationery items to meet the needs of the
Senate environment on a day-to-day basis and maintain a
sufficient inventory of these items.
--To purchase supplies utilizing open market procurement, competitive
bid and/or GSA Federal Supply Schedules.
--To maintain individual official stationery expense accounts for
Senators, Committees, and Officers of the Senate.
--To render monthly expense statements.
--To insure receipt of reimbursements for all purchases by the client
base via direct payments or through the certification process.
--To make payments to all vendors of record for supplies and services
in a timely manner and certify receipt of all supplies and
services.
--To provide delivery of all purchased supplies to the requesting
offices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2005 2004
Statistics Statistics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross Sales............................. $5,247,163 $4,740,221
Sales Transactions...................... 60,247 58,682
Purchase Orders Issued.................. 8,611 6,741
Vouchers Processed...................... 9,206 7,485
Mass Transit Media Sold................. 75,607 67,836
$20.00.............................. 64,527 60,564
$10.00.............................. 3,923 3,923
$5.00............................... 7,157 3,148
===============================
Time Employees (FTE).................... 13 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2005 Highlights and Projects
Flag Purchase Modernization Project.--During fiscal year 2005, with
the assistance of the Architect of the Capitol and the Senate Sergeant
at Arms, the Stationery Room embarked on a program to develop a method
in which Member offices could purchase flags which had been flown over
the Capitol, but were not date or occasion specific. Research revealed
that approximately 37 percent of all flag requests by constituents were
only to obtain a flag flown over the Capitol. It was reasoned that if
flags could be flown in advance, significant wait times could be
reduced. Thus, the Senate Sergeant at Arms PG&DM Division created
artwork for a generic customizable flag certificate, along with a CD
template that could be used in the customization process. All flags
which have been pre-flown come with a Certificate of Authenticity
signed by the Architect, certifying each flag has been flown over the
United States Capitol. Currently this program is in use by a pilot
group of Member offices.
Senate Service Award Project.--At the end of fiscal year 2004,
authorization was granted to proceed in the development of a program to
recognize Senate staff who have completed twenty and thirty years of
Senate service. Working closely with the Committee on Rules and
Administration, the Senate Disbursing Office and Stationery Room
vendors, a new Service Award Certificate was developed. This project
resulted in the presentation of approximately 540 certificates to staff
members who were employed in the Senate as of September 2004.
Mass Transit Subsidy Electronic Submissions.--This project came to
fruition with a fully functional application developed in-house by the
Senate Sergeant at Arms Information and Technology's Research and
Development team. This application allows users to submit their
requests for Mass Transit media via a web-based solution. Once
submitted, the request is filled by Stationery Room staff and
notification is made to the requesting office that their media is
ready. The Senate currently has 120 offices participating in the Mass
Transit Subsidy Program of which 97 offices are submitting requests
electronically.
Senate Support Facility.--A new off-site facility affords the
Stationery Room a 1,800 square foot secure work area along with an
additional pallet storage area which will accommodate 190 pallets of
merchandise. Stationery Room staff is also working on logistical and
additional usage functions in this modern facility as a tenant user,
including the ability to use the assigned space as a distribution
center for product.
Computer Modernization.--For over two years, the Stationery Room
has worked to achieve modernization of its aged computer system. These
efforts culminated in the ``rollout'' on August 4, 2005 of a new, state
of the art sequel-based retail point of sale and accounting system. The
base product installation will allow the Stationery Room to manage its
inventory by location; provide account holders with detailed monthly
transaction information; eliminate paper transaction storage with
information stored for retrieval from the system on demand, and a host
of other features that new technology now provides.
16. web technology
The Office of Web Technology is responsible for web sites that fall
under the purview of the Secretary of the Senate, including: the Senate
website, www.senate.gov (except individual Senator and Committee
pages); the Secretary website on Webster; an intranet site currently
used for file-sharing by Secretary staff only; and a LegBranch web
server housing web sites and project materials which can be accessed by
staff at other Legislative Branch agencies.
The Senate Web site (www.senate.gov)
The United States Senate Web site celebrated its 10 year
anniversary in 2005. The first U.S. Senate home page on the World Wide
Web was announced October 20, 1995 on the Senate floor. From the Senate
homepage members of the public could easily find the homepages for
their own Senators. As the World Wide Web grew, so did the content and
mission of Senate.gov. The pages of information became catalogs and
databases, but the mission to provide the public with accurate and
timely information remained constant.
The second Senate home page, introduced in January 1997, provided a
graphical interface, a virtual tour of the Capitol, access to Senate
committee pages, and improved access to legislative data. Information
about institutional procedures, history, and statistical records were
also new to the site.
Senate floor and committee schedule information was provided when
the 106th Congress convened and the third home page was launched on
January 6, 1999. The site received a Federal Design Award, issued by
the National Endowment for the Arts and the General Services
Administration. The award recognized the site for ``humaniz[ing] the
venerable institution of the Senate by making its everyday activities
and rich history readily accessible to the public.''
The Senate's fourth home page was launched in October 2002 and
included the functionality of a powerful, behind-the-scenes content
management system. The previous web sites were maintained by a small
team of 5 staff who knew HTML and could code content for display in web
browsers. This new system allowed non-technical subject experts to post
information to the Web site, greatly increasing the amount of relevant
information available to the public. Over 30 contributors from eleven
departments in the offices of the Secretary and the Sergeant at Arms
now publish text and images on the Web site.
In 2005 the newest graphical interface was designed for
www.senate.gov, bringing more content to the front page, and providing
access to Senators' websites from every page on the site. To help
visitors find information, links to popular features were added to the
homepage and a new site-wide search, available from every page, was
introduced.
The SAA conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the search
appliance to see if it is compatible with the Senate environment.
Secretary staff did extensive testing during the evaluation period and
determined that the new search would work for senate.gov. This
department also participated in developing the custom tag for use by
Senate offices who want to put a search feature on their own web pages
to search only their own web site content.
There were more than 50 million visitors to the Senate website in
2005--five times more than the estimated 8 million visitors in 2001.
The latest changes and additions to the Senate Web site will greatly
assist these visitors in connecting with their Senators and in finding
the information they seek.
Senate.gov Web Development Projects
Web Technology staff worked with content providers to create
several special features for the Senate website:
The Political Cartoons of Puck Exhibit
Puck, a satirical weekly magazine that parodied the American
political scene was one of the most popular periodicals of the late
19th century. The new Puck Exhibit on senate.gov includes slideshows of
Puck cartoons and ``Take the Puck Challenge,'' an innovative,
interactive series of riddles designed to give readers insight to the
political satire.
Birds of the Brumidi Corridors Exhibit
Constantino Brumidi included designs for more than 350 individual
birds of at least 100 species in his paintings in the Senate corridors.
A new exhibit on senate.gov features these paintings of birds in
several slideshow presentations.
World War II: The Senate and the Nation's Capitol
This slideshow photo exhibit focuses on the Senate and the role it
played in supporting the war effort and its aftermath and honors the
brave men and women of World War II who sacrificed so much to preserve
the ideals of liberty and representative democracy.
legislative information system (lis) project
The Legislative Information System (LIS) is a mandated system
(Section 8 of the 1997 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2 U.S.C.
123e) that provides desktop access to the content and status of
legislative information and supporting documents. The 1997 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act (2 U.S.C. 181) also established a program for
providing the widest possible exchange of information among legislative
branch agencies. The long-range goal of the LIS Project is to provide a
``comprehensive Senate Legislative Information System'' to capture,
store, manage, and distribute Senate documents. Several components of
the LIS have been implemented, and the project is currently focused on
a Senate-wide implementation and transition to a standard system for
the authoring and exchange of legislative documents that will greatly
enhance the availability and re-use of legislative documents within the
Senate and with other legislative branch agencies. The LIS Project
Office manages the project.
Background: LISAP
An April 1997 joint Senate and House report recommended
establishment of a data standards program, and in December 2000, the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House
Administration jointly accepted the Extensible Markup Language (XML) as
the primary data standard to be used for the exchange of legislative
documents and information.
Following the implementation of the Legislative Information System
(LIS) in January 2000, the LIS Project Office shifted its focus to the
data standards program and established the LIS Augmentation Project
(LISAP). The over-arching goal of the LISAP is to provide a Senate-wide
implementation and transition to XML for the authoring and exchange of
legislative documents.
The current focus for the LISAP is the development and
implementation of an XML authoring system for legislative documents
produced by the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel (SLC) and the
Office of the Enrolling Clerk. The XML authoring application is called
LEXA, an acronym for the Legislative Editing in XML Application. LEXA
features many automated functions that provide a more efficient and
consistent document authoring process. The LIS Project Office has
worked very closely with the SLC to create an application that meets
the needs for legislative drafting.
LISAP: 2005
The SLC began using LEXA to draft legislation in early 2004. The
SLC offered valuable feedback throughout that year on LEXA's continued
development as new features were added and additional document types,
such as amendments and reported bills, were added. Just prior to the
beginning of the 109th Congress, the LIS Project Office provided a one-
day training course on several new and enhanced features of LEXA, and
the SLC began 2005 creating 60 percent of their drafts of introduced
bills and resolutions in XML. By the end of the session, 80 percent of
all introduced and reported bills and resolutions (and countless
amendments) had been created in XML. Several very large drafts were
created in XML, including the energy bill and the highway bill.
Feedback and development continued throughout 2005. Additional features
and document types--conference reports, constitutional amendments, and
engrossed and enrolled bills--were added to LEXA. LEXA's authoring
environment offers many automated document creation functions,
providing a faster, more consistent drafting process.
As LEXA becomes more widely used in the SLC and other offices,
support of the application becomes increasingly important. The 2004
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act directed the Government Printing
Office (GPO) to provide support for LEXA. GPO took over maintenance and
support of the software module that converts a Senate XML document to
locator for printing through Microcomp, and is now updating the
software to print House XML documents. GPO is also working to solve
problems with the software that creates and prints tables, and that
table tool will be replaced with a more robust one sometime in 2006.
The LIS Project Office worked closely with several key House, GPO,
and Library of Congress groups involved in the XML project to ensure
that the House and Senate XML authoring applications produce compatible
electronic and printed documents that may be exchanged among the
organizations processing the documents. The groups held several
meetings in August and agreed to use the same tools to create tables
and print XML documents through Microcomp. The House and Senate
software development groups also reached agreement on several technical
authoring issues and standards, thereby eliminating the need for
additional processing when a document is exchanged between the House
and the Senate.
The project to convert the compilations of current law to an XML
format was completed in early September. Staff in the House and Senate
Legislative Counsel Offices update the compilations, and both groups
participated in the project. The compilations are used as the basis for
many legislative drafts and having the XML data will make it easier for
both offices to use the text of compilations for drafting legislation
in XML.
The LIS Project Office provides support for LEXA via the LEXA
HelpLine and LEXA website. The HelpLine is provided through a single
phone number that rings on all the phones in the office, and the
website is located on a server accessible by the legislative branch.
The website, legbranch.senate.gov/lis/lexa, is used to distribute
updates of the application to GPO and provides access to release notes,
the reference manual, and other user aids. The Office continued to
update the LEXA Reference Manual as new features were added to LEXA.
The manual provides screen shots and step-by-step instructions for all
LEXA features. The Office also trained new SLC staff and the Enrolling
Clerks on LEXA and provided several demonstrations on new LEXA features
throughout the year.
The document management system (DMS) for the SLC will be
implemented once the SLC has completed the transition from XyWrite to
LEXA. The Systems Development Services group of the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms continues to update the DMS to the most recent
releases of Documentum and verifies that all SLC requirements will be
met. The Systems Development Services group provides support and
maintenance for the LIS/DMS, and that group will also support the DMS
for the SLC once it is deployed. The LIS Project Office has been
monitoring the upgrade effort and will contract for transition training
to be developed and delivered prior to implementation. The DMS will be
integrated with LEXA and will provide a powerful tracking, management,
and delivery tool.
LISAP: 2006
The Office of the Enrolling Clerk will begin to use LEXA to produce
engrossed and enrolled bills in XML from the XML versions of introduced
and reported bills. The Legislative Branch XML Technical Committee will
work together to develop the document type definitions for creating
appropriations bills. Once the definitions are completed and validated,
the LIS Project Office will enhance LEXA to add the ability to create
appropriations language, starting first with appropriations amendments
created by the SLC. Following that, we hope to begin discussions with
the Appropriations committee staff that prepare the bills for printing.
The LIS Project Office will continue to work with the SLC and the
Office of the Enrolling Clerk to refine and enhance LEXA so that more
and more of the documents produced by those offices will be done in
XML. Once all of the documents can be produced in XML using LEXA, those
offices will be able to stop using XyWrite. Since XyWrite is not
compatible with other Windows software, moving away from it will allow
the offices to use more modern technologies for all functions. For
example, eliminating XyWrite will finally give the SLC the opportunity
to implement a document management system and automate other office
functions. Other Senate offices that do drafting with XyWrite may begin
using LEXA, including the Committee on Appropriations. Thus far in the
second session of the 109th Congress, approximately 96 percent of
introduced bills and resolutions have been created as XML documents.
The legislative process yields other types of documents such as the
Senate and Executive Journals and the Legislative and Executive
Calendars. Much of the data and information included in these documents
is already captured in and distributed through the LIS/DMS database
used by the clerks in the Office of the Secretary. The LIS/DMS captures
data that relates to legislation including bill and resolution numbers,
amendment numbers, sponsors, co-sponsors, and committees of referral.
This information is currently entered into the database and verified by
the clerks and then keyed into the respective documents and reverified
at GPO before printing. An interface between this database and the
electronic documents could mutually exchange data. For example, the
LIS/DMS database could insert the bill number, additional co-sponsors,
and committee of referral into an introduced bill while the bill draft
document could supply the official and short titles of the bill to the
database.
The Congressional Record, like the Journals and Calendars, includes
data that is contained in and reported by the LIS/DMS database.
Preliminary DTDs have been designed for these documents, and
applications could be built to construct XML document components by
extracting and tagging the LIS/DMS data. These applications would
provide a faster, more consistent assembly of these documents and would
enhance the ability to index and search their contents. The LIS Project
Office will coordinate with the Systems Development Services Branch of
the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to begin design and development of
XML applications and interfaces for the LIS/DMS and legislative
documents. As more and more legislative data and documents are provided
in XML formats that use common elements across all document types, the
Library of Congress will be able to expand the LIS Retrieval System to
provide more content-specific searches.
NEW TECHNOLOGY IN THE SENATE
Senator Allard. Thank you for your leadership. Businesses
and agencies have to make constant decisions about the
technology that they use in their offices. You have shared with
us some of the high tech services that you're providing to the
public and to Members of the Senate. How does your office
continue to take advantage of technological developments and
incorporate them into your services provided to the Senate,
when do you determine that the technology has ripened to the
point where you can bring it in and not create a lot of
problems? How do you make those kind of decisions?
Ms. Reynolds. You know that's a great question, and the
Sergeant at Arms is very much a partner with us in any
technological development, as they, as you know better than I,
certainly have the lead in this for the Senate. I think the
pilot projects, I mentioned the flag project in particular, we
have a number of pilots going with disbursing through our
financial management information system. The best way for us to
determine when something is ripe if you will, or ready for a
roll out is because we've been through that pilot phase and
we've worked directly with Senate offices to understand what
works and what doesn't work, so they're invaluable to us in
that feedback.
But you're right, staying ahead of that curve, whether it's
something small, like being able to book the LBJ room online,
or order your paper online for your office through printing and
documents to something as large as our Senate amendment
tracking system, or our FMIS project with disbursing, we're
constantly striving to serve this community better.
And I also want to make one quick mention as well, on the
website of a new addition that hopefully will be rolled out
this year, because as I've said, keeping that website fresh,
especially for the public, is important to us. And there should
be one addition coming there on the Senate desks, which I think
will be of enormous interest to you and your colleagues and
also to the public. Actually going in and looking at each desk,
explaining its history, talking about the conservation of the
desk. So again, from simple things to large, and again
remaining current for the public we're constantly striving to
stay ahead of the curve if you will.
LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS
Senator Allard. Very good. I'm going to move on to the
Office of Public Records, which is under your jurisdiction as
Office of the Secretary of the Senate. We're looking at
lobbying reform, and it has the potential to increase filings
by a considerable amount as I understand it. Could you give me
an overview of that operation and tell me whether you have
sufficient resources to implement a significant increase in
filings?
Ms. Reynolds. I really appreciate that question and
obviously there's been a great deal of discussion here in these
last few weeks alone. Our public records office has been in the
business of receiving those lobbying disclosure reports now,
for just over a decade, since the passage of the LDA. And as
you well know we currently receive those filings twice a year,
mid-February and again mid-August. I have a couple of
statistics for you that are also in our written report. There
are roughly 6,500 registrants who represent just over 20,000
clients. They employ almost 33,000 individuals, so it's a big
number. All told that means that our Office of Public Records,
reviews about 45,000 documents a year.
I'm also very proud that the lobbying community has been
able to e-file with the Senate since the year 2000. And in fact
since 2001, lobbying reports and registrations as far back as
1998 have been posted on senate.gov for public access. Our role
in public records with regard to the LDA is an administrative
role. We do not have the enforcement authority. That belongs to
the U.S. attorney of the District of Columbia. But since 2003
we have referred approximately 2,100 registrants to the U.S.
Attorney's Office. Virtually all potential nonfiling and a
handful for noncompliance. I'm particularly grateful for the
second part of your question, because obviously no one is
precisely sure at the moment where this journey ultimately
takes us. And while we're staying on top of the situation I may
well be back to this subcommittee at the appropriate time to
make a plea, first of all for time, because if there is
substantial change that we undergo in the receipt of these
documents we will need time to implement, and second of all the
potential for additional resources exists.
But I think with your permission if we could continue to
stay in touch on this as this issue evolves we would be very
grateful.
Senator Allard. Yes. As we get a clearer view of what the
legislation might look like, we do want to stay in touch with
your office in that regard.
Ms. Reynolds. Thank you, that would be very helpful.
STUDY OF SENATE STAFF PAY
Senator Allard. I just have a couple of other brief
questions just for the record. Last year your office received
funds to conduct a pay study of Senate employees, and can you
tell me what the status of this study is?
Ms. Reynolds. The study is in draft form. In fact we were
talking about working groups, we have a working group coming
together this afternoon with office administrators and chiefs
of staff to review our first draft. So it is in process, and
hopefully we'll have the study out to the community here within
the next month.
Senator Allard. Good.
Ms. Reynolds. I appreciate you asking the question too, if
I might make one plea to those watching today. For the study to
be effective and for it to produce the kind of results that the
community is hoping for in terms of looking at hiring
practices, benefits, salaries and so forth, we need as much
participation as possible. So thanks for mentioning it today,
so I can make my plea to our Senate offices to help us with
this survey.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ONLINE FILING
Senator Allard. And finally, if the Senate moves to online
Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing, for campaign
committees, what resources will your office need to make this
conversion? Would you comment on that?
Ms. Reynolds. Yes sir. Like most everything else around
here, we're poised to act when the Senate acts, but I think on
this one, just like with lobbying disclosure if there is
substantial change coming our way, and if the Senate decides to
move to e-filing, we will need time. A minimum of 6 months and
possibly up to 1 year to be able to implement the program and
there will be a need for additional resources. We're still
looking at those numbers and some are dependent on what
hardware, what software needs we'll have at that time. So again
so I may be back hat in hand depending on those decisions made.
Senator Allard. Your main demand would be for basically
hardware to process the electronic filing?
Ms. Reynolds. Right. Hardware----
Senator Allard. But it seems to me you would need fewer
people, because you wouldn't have to have that data entry that
you have.
Ms. Reynolds. Possibly, but we're a pretty lean and mean
operation in public records right now. I think our total staff
there right now, is nine. And for example on lobbying
disclosures there are three people on a daily basis dedicated
to lobbying disclosure but when those reports start to hit in
mid-February, mid-August, everybody helps out. So we'd be happy
to take a look at that, as I said, we run a pretty lean and
mean shop with folks who are capable of multitasking when the
need arises.
Senator Allard. Just asking you to look at it carefully.
Ms. Reynolds. We shall.
Senator Allard. I'm sure you will.
Ms. Reynolds. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony. We don't have
any other questions from the subcommittee, and so we won't tie
up your time, I know you're busy and I'll call up the second
panel.
Ms. Reynolds. Thank you sir.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY:
STEPHEN AYERS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
MARK WEISS, DIRECTOR, CAPITOL POWER PLANT
WELCOMING REMARKS
Senator Allard. Okay. Now we turn to the second panel. And
before I make my formal remarks. I just want to recognize Mark
Weiss who's now our new Director of the Capitol Power Plant,
and Mark, welcome. And now, we'll turn to the Architect of the
Capitol, to review the fiscal year 2007 budget request. Again
welcome Mr. Hantman and Chief Operating Officer Stephen Ayers.
Mr. Ayers was named Chief Operating Officer on Monday.
Mr. Ayers. Yes sir.
Senator Allard. You've been in the position on an acting
basis for several months and I think you did a good job then.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET CONCERNS
Senator Allard. We congratulate you on this new position
and wish you the best of luck. The AOC budget request totals
$588 million, an increase of $164 million or 38 percent, over
the current budget. This is the largest increase proposed by
any Federal agency for the fiscal year 2007. While I commend
the process your agency has developed, you prioritized major
construction projects, clearly we need to do some paring back.
There are a number of large projects in the budget, including
$54 million for a new Library of Congress warehouse at Fort
Meade, $20.6 million to complete the Capitol Visitor Center,
$19 million for renovations to the infrastructure and the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, and $15.9 million to replace
the fire alarm system in the Hart Senate Office Building. Other
large increases in the budget include $20 million for 91 new
employees for the CVC operation, and a $10 million increase for
information technology projects.
SAFETY HAZARDS IN THE UTILITY TUNNELS
While these projects may be meritorious, and urgently
needed, we will need to scrub each of them carefully and only
fund the very highest priorities. In addition to budget issues,
we'd like to discuss the complaint recently filed by the Office
of Compliance for AOC's failure to comply with the citation
issued almost 6 years ago directing the AOC to correct serious
safety hazards in the utility tunnels by 2002. This is the
first time the Office of Compliance has issued a complaint,
demonstrating the magnitude of this very serious problem. The
hazards include structural deficiencies that could lead to
cave-ins, inadequate communication systems for workers in the
tunnels, and inadequate means of egress.
Finally we look forward to an update on projects that are
currently underway as well as your efforts to address
management challenges identified by the Government
Accountability Office. Before I turn to you for your testimony
Mr. Hantman, I want to ask the ranking member who just arrived
if he has any comments.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman I apologize, we have an
immigration bill markup in Judiciary, one floor above and I've
spent time back and forth, and I'm sorry that I came in late
for this. I want to get into the whole question about the
safety aspects of the workplace at CVC and particularly this
troubling report about the presence of asbestos in the tunnels
and the danger that it creates for the employees that could be
inhaling these lethal time bombs. I was not aware of how
serious this was, or how long it had been pending for a
resolution. I think it should have been taken care of years
ago. I don't know how many workers have been exposed, if any--I
pray to God none. But if they have we've done them a great
disservice. I thank you for your continuing oversight on this
project and I will stay to ask some specific questions as time
allows.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today's second budget
oversight hearing of fiscal year 2007 where we will hear testimony on
the budget requests of the Secretary of the Senate and the Architect of
the Capitol.
I want to join the Chairman in welcoming today's witnesses, Emily
Reynolds, Secretary of the Senate, and Alan Hantman, Architect of the
Capitol.
Thanks to both of you for attending this morning.
Ms. Reynolds, welcome back to the subcommittee for your fourth year
as Secretary of the Senate. I think that you and your staff are doing a
superb job and your budget request looks very straightforward.
My staff and I greatly appreciate your guidance and leadership in
the CVC decision-making progress. I realize that this has been a long,
difficult, and at times frustrating process. Your dedication and
determination are very admirable.
I would appreciate any comments you might wish to include with
regard to the CVC.
Mr. Hantman, first of all I would like to acknowledge the
outstanding day to day work of all of your employees. I think it's easy
to overlook the hard work that goes into the seamless running of this
complex on a daily basis. This is a very well qualified and hard-
working group of men and women and I appreciate their contribution to
this complex. I think we should all extend our gratitude to them for
their service. I would like to especially thank Carlos Elias, Don
White, Barbara Wolanin, and Adrienne Powers, of your staff for their
extra efforts on behalf of my staff in the Assistant Democratic
Leader's office.
I would like to welcome Mr. Stephen Ayers, who has just been named
as Chief Operating Officer at AOC. Mr. Ayers has been serving as Acting
COO for quite some time and I'm glad to see that he will be serving in
this capacity permanently.
Mr. Hantman, I am encouraged by the overall progress your office is
making in the area of worker safety. However I am deeply concerned
about the situation involving the workers in the utility tunnels. The
OSHA complaint recently filed by the Office of Compliance citing
``potentially life threatening working conditions'' in the utility
tunnels that provide steam and chilled water throughout the Capitol
complex presents a situation that must be addressed immediately.
This situation was first brought to your attention in 2000.
However, since then, it appears that very little has been done to
address the very serious problems that exist in these tunnels.
I am particularly troubled by the presence of asbestos in the
tunnels. I have met with so many families who have been affected by
asbestos-related illnesses in my work outside of this subcommittee.
When these workers are inhaling these fibers they are inhaling time
bombs. I doubt the workers in these tunnels realize how serious this
situation is.
I hope you will update the Subcommittee on the steps you are taking
to expedite the repair of these tunnels. Chairman Allard and I recently
granted you the authority to reprogram $1.8 million for a portion of
this work and I think that's a step in the right direction. But this
situation must be completely resolved as soon as possible so that these
workers' lives are not put in jeopardy by merely doing their jobs.
Frankly, it should have been taken care of years ago.
Last month in their report entitled, ``Architect of the Capitol--
Management Challenges Remain,''--GAO noted that you have still not
filled several leadership positions on your staff such as Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of
Congressional and External Relations, and Director of Planning and
Project Management. I am glad that you recently filled the long-vacant
position of Director of the Capitol Power Plant. However, I hope you
will explain to the subcommittee when you plan to fill these other
crucial positions.
Finally, Mr. Hantman, Chairman Allard has already summarized your
fiscal year 2007 budget request so I won't repeat the details. I do
want to emphasize, however, the importance of prioritizing your
requests. It troubles me to see a $54 million request for a Library of
Congress construction project while very serious repair and maintenance
problems exist around the complex. In a time of tight budget
constraints such as this, new construction projects should have to take
a back seat to important maintenance and repair needs that continue to
lag on around this complex.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Okay, let me now turn to the Architect of
the Capitol, Mr. Hantman, we're looking forward to your
testimony.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN
Mr. Hantman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today, regarding our
fiscal 2007 budget request. My full statement has been
submitted for the record, however I would like to give a brief
overview of this request. Mr. Chairman in our role as stewards,
the AOC is responsible for 15 million square feet of buildings,
and more than 300 acres of land. The Capitol complex is in
reality a small city; however it's a small city with an aging
physical infrastructure, ever stricter codes and safety
criteria to meet, as well as complex security requirements.
Our buildings range from 25 to 200 years old. This means
that there are many projects that require our attention to
assure that these buildings continue to serve as functioning
working environments and that we preserve these national
treasures entrusted to our care for generations to come.
Mr. Chairman we did not prepare this budget in a vacuum,
unaware of the economic issues our country and this Congress
are facing. I can appreciate the tough choices that this
subcommittee must make as you hear from each legislative branch
agency with its budget request. I can appreciate this because
it's difficult for me to rank the relative needs and benefits
of necessary security and fire and life safety projects needed
across the Capitol campus.
How do I weigh the needs of the Library of Congress against
those of the Capitol Police, or the Senate Sergeant at Arms
against those of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House?
The AOC is in the position of being a repository, if you will
Mr. Chairman, for the needs of other agencies. They all have
real needs that the AOC then becomes responsible for, and our
budget request reflects these cumulative needs.
Our projects were prioritized through a progressive
sequence of steps to determine which are most crucial. While
it's my responsibility as steward of these buildings to bring
these needs and issues to Congress' attention, I'm also aware
that cuts will need to be made, as you mentioned Mr. Chairman,
from that prioritized list. And I'm prepared to work with this
subcommittee and other legislative branch agencies to determine
which cuts to make so that we fit within the overall budget
structure that this subcommittee ultimately allows.
Mr. Chairman, we prioritize our projects based on a set of
criteria that allows us to evaluate the merits of those
projects. Facility condition assessments conducted across most
of our jurisdictions measure the current condition of all
facilities to assess how much work is necessary to maintain, or
upgrade their conditions to acceptable levels, and to determine
the timeframe for this work. We hope to initiate this process
at the Library of Congress, contingent on the approval of our
budget request, so that we fully understand their facility
needs as well. We'd then be able to appropriately prioritize
their project needs based on the same criteria used for other
jurisdictions.
In fact Mr. Chairman, the direction to perform condition
assessments was given, and appropriately so, by this
subcommittee back in 2002. And if I may quote from that
language.
``Condition Assessments Master Plan. The Committee has
provided an amount of $500,000 in the Capitol buildings
appropriation and an amount of $1,100,000 in the Senate Office
Building appropriation to initiate a comprehensive condition
assessment of the Capitol complex. The assessment will be
conducted in tandem with the development of a master plan for
the Capitol complex and will include the collection of relevant
information regarding buildings, inspection and equipment
testing of properties and assets. Analysis and identification
of deficiencies, identification of solutions, and costs, a
forecast of future renewal requirements, and the development of
long range comprehensive financial plans.''
Mr. Chairman, we've been working diligently to fulfill the
directives and develop meaningful information which, in fact,
GAO has reviewed. It's important to note that according to the
Government Accountability Office ``While the FCAs--the facility
condition assessments, have enabled AOC to develop a
comprehensive plan for facilities, maintenance, and building
renewal, the assessments have also documented the magnitude of
AOC's deferred maintenance and other projects. $2.6 billion
over 9 years, and the challenge of funding these projects.''
Mr. Chairman, GAO's statement about ``the challenge of
funding these projects'' is right on target. In a no-growth
budget environment it's, of course, particularly challenging.
With all due respect, if these facility infrastructure needs
are not addressed within an appropriate timeframe, our
buildings will continue to age and deteriorate and the cost to
correct these deficiencies will continue to escalate in future
years.
With regard to safety, it's a priority at the AOC,
therefore I'm pleased to report that for the fifth year in a
row, the AOC's injury and illness rate decreased. Last year we
dropped to 5.65 from a high of 17.9 in fiscal year 2000. This
is amazing because we're coming down to the level of many white
collar organizations in the Federal agencies as well as across
the Government.
While I'm proud of these accomplishments, I will not be
satisfied until we achieve our ultimate goal of a workplace
free of injury and illness. This includes the steam tunnels
that were the subject of the Office of Compliance's complaint
you discussed. Over the past several years, in the tunnels, we
have rebuilt approximately 600 feet of tunnel roof under
Constitution Avenue, at a cost of approximately $5 million. I
think you might remember, Mr. Chairman, that for over 1 year
the street on Constitution Avenue was ripped up. We had to
replace the roof of that tunnel, that's one of the first items
identified by our surveys that really needed to be taken care
of up front.
We also contracted for the inspection of 19 tunnel egress
points, developed an egress improvements work plan, replaced
the South Capitol Street steam line, for another $5.5 million
and that included making structural repairs to manholes.
We also implemented the in-house tunnel condition
monitoring program last October which includes monitoring,
recording and reviewing tunnel conditions daily. While this
work was being planned and implemented, we have been working
each year to remove spalls in areas where the concrete ceiling
is damaged. We installed a leaky cable communication system in
the major pathways in the tunnels. We currently have funding to
install cable in the small stub pathways that come off the main
tunnels. We are proceeding with that work and will get it done
within the next months. We also provided our employees with
confined space and asbestos awareness training.
Mr. Chairman, we've requested $1.75 million in the 2007
budget to fund priority projects in the tunnels. We've received
approvals on a $1.8 million reprogramming to continue
additional structural repairs, asbestos abatement, and
emergency egress repairs. Significant additional funding will
be required and we're working to determine the magnitude of
that funding now.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as GAO noted in its February
2006 report, we have made significant progress in our
transformation into a more strategic organization. They state
that the AOC has made progress in developing safety policies
and establishing a safety training curriculum; has implemented
a variety of communication methods to convey information to
employees; has taken important initial steps to address the
management and structure needed to establish a sound IT
investment management process; has created a clearly defined,
well documented and transparent process for evaluating and
prioritizing projects. We're committed to fulfilling our
responsibilities over the long term, although that means we
have to make tough choices, as you indicated Mr. Chairman, with
regard to how we select and prioritize our projects.
Our request for funds in 2007 is directly related to our
responsibility as good stewards to maintain and preserve the
facilities and national treasures in our care. I'm very proud
of our 2,000 dedicated AOC professionals and I'm privileged to
lead this remarkable organization.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I greatly appreciate the subcommittee's support in helping
us achieve our goals, and once again thank you for this
opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today regarding our fiscal year 2007
budget request. This request is structured to enable us to continue
supporting the Legislative Branch by ensuring that the Capitol complex
is safe and well maintained, our national treasures are preserved and
protected, and we continue to provide high quality, efficient, and
effective services to our customers.
stewardship and prioritizing projects
In our role as stewards, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
(AOC) is responsible for some 15 million square feet of buildings and
more than 300 acres of land. The Capitol complex is, in reality, like a
small city. However, it is a small city with an aging physical
infrastructure. Our buildings range from 25 years old for the Library's
Madison Building, to more than 100 years old for the Russell, Cannon,
and Jefferson buildings, to 200 years old for various parts of the
Capitol Building. This means that there are many potential projects
that call for our attention to ensure that these buildings continue to
serve as functioning working environments for generations to come.
While it is my responsibility to bring these issues to Congress's
attention, it is obvious that for practical considerations of
construction and fiscal restraint, we must spread out the funding and
physical workload over the course of multiple years. Therefore, we have
prioritized these projects to determine which are more critical than
others. In previous budget requests, my focus has been on ensuring that
fire and life-safety deficiencies were corrected. With your support we
have devoted significant resources toward protecting the people who
work and visit Capitol Hill by continually working to improve the
safety and security of our facilities. Protecting people is, and will
continue to be, my top priority as evidenced by the number of fire and
life-safety projects in our current budget request.
While developing this budget, we reviewed many annual operating and
capital project requests. We made difficult choices regarding funding
AOC operations, new programs, and high priority capital projects, while
at the same time balancing the day-to-day needs of those we serve.
As a result, before we submitted our current request, we removed
$44.3 million worth of important projects. The $588.3 million we have
requested for fiscal year 2007 ($509.4 million without items specific
to the House) was submitted in our role as responsible stewards of our
national treasures and in support of the needs of Congress, while
balancing requests for new initiatives.
It is important to note that we prioritize our projects based on a
set of objective criteria that allow us to evaluate the relative merits
of each of these projects. At Congress's direction, starting in 2004,
we conducted a series of Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) in most
of our jurisdictions. We hope to continue the process with the Library
of Congress, contingent on the approval of our fiscal year 2007 budget
request. Our plan would be to survey the Library Buildings, in phases,
beginning with the Madison Building. By completing FCAs for the Library
of Congress buildings, we would fully understand their existing
facility needs and would then be able to appropriately prioritize LOC
projects with the same criteria used for other jurisdictions. These
FCAs provide us with a method for measuring the current condition of
all facilities in a uniform way to assess how much work is necessary to
maintain or upgrade their conditions to acceptable levels to support
organizational missions and when this work should occur.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its
February 2006 report to Congress, ``While the FCAs have enabled AOC to
develop a comprehensive plan for facility maintenance and building
renewal, the assessments have also documented the magnitude of AOC's
deferred maintenance and other projects--$2.6 billion over nine years--
and the challenge of funding these projects.'' What this $2.6 billion
breaks down into is a total of $886 million for deferred maintenance
and capital renewal projects as identified in the FCAs (excluding the
Library of Congress and the Supreme Court), with the remaining balance
identified for capital improvements ($1.1 billion) and capital
construction projects ($69 million). Mr. Chairman, GAO's statement
about ``the challenge of funding these projects'' is right on target.
In a no-growth budget environment, it is particularly challenging. If
these facility infrastructure needs are not met in appropriate
timeframes, the conditions of our buildings will continue to
deteriorate and the cost to correct these facility maintenance
deficiencies will continue to rise.
A very recent example of capital renewal is demonstrated by the
issuance of a complaint by the Office of Compliance (OOC) regarding the
utility tunnels which provide steam and chilled water to the Capitol
complex. We are taking a comprehensive approach to addressing the
existing issues in the tunnels and are identifying a logical sequence
to the necessary actions that will be taken. We have presented this
plan to the OOC. Over the past several years we have completed these
and other tasks in the utility tunnels: replaced the top of
approximately 600 feet of the tunnel under Constitution Avenue at a
cost of approximately $5 million; contracted for inspection of 19
tunnel egress points and developed an Egress Improvements Work Plan;
replaced the South Capitol Street steam line and vault for
approximately $5.5 million which includes making structural repairs to
manholes. We have also implemented an in-house Tunnel Condition
Monitoring Program in October 2005 which includes monitoring,
recording, and reviewing tunnel conditions daily; and we have been
continually working to remove incipient spalls in areas where the
concrete ceiling is damaged.
We have requested $1.75 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget to
fund priority projects involving the tunnels. We recently received
approvals from the Senate and House on a $1.8 million reprogramming
request to continue additional structural repairs, asbestos abatement,
and emergency egress repairs in the tunnels. Additional significant
funding will certainly be required and we are working to determine the
magnitude of that funding now.
overall planning process
In terms of our overall planning process, when all of the Facility
Condition Assessments are completed, they are rolled into a five-year
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP, which became fully integrated
in the fiscal year 2006 budget process, is used to evaluate projects
based on an objective set of criteria, including:
--Fire and life safety, code compliance, regulatory compliance, and
statutory compliance.
--Preservation of historic or legacy elements or features of
buildings or entire historic structures as a reflection of the
importance of stewardship responsibilities.
--Impact on our mission, including client urgency.
--Economics, including value, economic payback, life cycle cost
considerations, and cost savings.
--Physical security, including protection of facilities, Members,
staff, and the general public.
The projects are further evaluated based on necessary timeframes
and on an evaluation of the conditions of the components and sub-
materials. These condition ratings are characterized as one of the
following: Adequate, sub-standard, and deficient.
They are then further rated as to the urgency in accomplishing them
as follows:
--Priority 1--Immediate: Safety or code violations, as well as
critical equipment that is either not functioning or close to
failure.
--Priority 2--High: Items need attention in the near term, as failure
would impact the mission. Implemented within two to four years.
--Priority 3--Medium: Implemented within five to seven years.
--Priority 4--Low: Low priority projects related to aesthetics or
minor performance issues. Implemented within 8 to 10 years.
All projects with an ``immediate'' urgency are given priority over
projects for which the urgency is ``high'' and so on. Additionally,
``deferred maintenance'' projects are generally considered a higher
priority than ``capital renewal.'' Using the CIP process, once all of
the FCAs are complete, we will be able to comparatively vet the
projects to ensure that the most urgent get addressed most quickly. It
is this multi-step methodology that has been used to produce the fiscal
year 2007 Capital Improvement Project Priority List that we submitted
for your consideration. Those projects that can be accommodated within
the budget level that is ultimately approved will move forward in
fiscal year 2007.
There will continue to be refinements to our project development
process. However with implementation of the prioritization process,
future program submissions will clearly be based first on the urgency
of accomplishing the project, followed by consideration as to the type
of project and its importance; with emphasis placed on deferred
maintenance projects. These changes will result in an efficient and
effective process and one that seeks to assure accuracy, responsible
management of resources, and efficient development of programs.
Ultimately, the Capitol Complex Master Plan will ensure that we
continue to be good stewards by establishing a framework that helps us
prioritize the maintenance, renovation, and construction of Capitol
Hill facilities over the next 5, 10, and 20 years, while also spreading
out the costs of that upkeep and construction.
In addition to these new processes we have made changes to our
organizational structure to improve how these projects are carried out.
With Congress's approval, we established the Project Management
Division which is charged with consolidating project and construction
management functions to provide ``cradle-to-grave'' oversight of our
projects. We have developed and implemented new processes that are
designed to improve project tracking and reporting as well as to hold
our consultants and contractors accountable for contract compliance. We
recently reinstated our quarterly report to communicate the budget and
schedule status of ongoing projects, the latest of which was delivered
to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees in January and was
well received by staff.
capital projects budget
Our fiscal year 2007 budget is comprised of two major components:
$232 million for capital projects and $356.3 million for our annual
operating budget.
The capital projects budget request consists of $193.4 million for
capital projects, $22.7 million for studies, designs, and condition
assessments, and $15.9 million for minor construction. This budget was
developed by prioritizing our project requirements; including those
requested by our customers. Using this set of criteria, we were able to
cut our initial list of 36 projects totaling more than $188 million to
19 projects worth $143.7 million. However, the projects that did not
make this current list have not gone away, nor has the need to fund
them within reasonable timeframes. They will have to be reprioritized
for another fiscal year where they will again compete with other
significant, additional projects for available funding.
The capital projects budget is grouped into the categories listed
below (also shown in Attachment A). Note that these include a number of
U.S Senate projects that have been designed to be completed in phases
that we hope to continue next year. They include public restroom
upgrades, modular furniture replacement, emergency generator
installation, and fire alarm system upgrades.
Deferred Maintenance--$30.4 million
Maintenance or repair work on existing facilities and
infrastructure that is past due and should not be deferred. This work
will return a component or system to an acceptable condition. It will
prevent physical depreciation or loss in the value of a building (this
does not include preventative or routine maintenance).
Projects include:
--$19.43 million--Dirksen Senate Office Building; attic
infrastructure improvements;
--$4 million--Rayburn House Office Building; 480v Switchgear and
Transformer Replacement;
--$2.89 million--Thomas Jefferson Building; air handling unit
replacement; and
--$2.56 million--Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Buildings;
elevator modernization projects.
Capital Renewal--$24.3 million
Correct unacceptable conditions caused by aged building components
that will exceed their useful life within the next 10 years. If
deferred for an inordinate amount of time, physical conditions may
deteriorate and become a deferred maintenance issue. Capital renewal
may be performed by overhaul, reconstruction, or replacement of
constituent parts damaged or deteriorated to the point where they
cannot be maintained.
Projects include:
--$15.95 million--Hart Senate Office Building; fire alarm system
replacement; and
--$8.34 million--Longworth House Office Building; kitchen exhaust
system upgrade.
Capital Improvement--$41.1 million
Work done to a building that improves, enhances, or updates a
building such as an addition, expansion, alteration, or replacement
including work done to bring a building into compliance with current
codes.
Projects include:
--$6.1 million--Russell Senate Office Building; emergency lighting
and power upgrade;
--$4.96 million--Rayburn House Office Building; emergency lighting
upgrade;
--$3 million--Rayburn House Office Building; Phase I public restrooms
upgrade;
--$3.5 million--U.S. Capitol; security improvements in the House
Chamber; and
--$4.37 million--Thomas Jefferson Building; sprinkler system
replacement.
Capital Construction--$63.7 million
Construction of a new building, facility, or other infrastructure
where none previously existed.
Projects include:
--$54.2 million--Library of Congress Logistics Warehouse, Fort Meade;
--$5.35 million--Alternate Computer Facility; vehicle storage
facility; and
--$4.1 million--U.S. Capitol Police; kiosks.
Other Projects--$12.3 million
Projects necessary to sustain and provide for Congressional and
Legislative Branch Agency mission requirements that do not meet CIP
criteria (construction projects greater than $250,000).
Projects include:
--$5 million--Alternate Computer Facility; land purchase; and
--$2.1 million--Energy Survey of Congressional Buildings.
Study, Design, and Condition Assessments--$22.7 million
Activities necessary to plan for future projects.
Projects include:
--$1 million--James Madison Building; Facility Condition Assessment;
--$3 million--FDA; fit out design study;
--$750,000--Longworth House Office Building; fire alarm system
upgrade;
--$700,000--U.S. Capitol; electrical distribution system replacement
design; and
--$300,000--Cannon House Office Building; egress improvements study.
Minor Construction--$15.9 million
Minor construction funding for each jurisdiction that provides the
flexibility for meeting unplanned project requirements generated by
Committees, Members, staffs, and other AOC clients.
Capitol Visitor Center--$21.6 million
The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $20.6 million for CVC
cost-to-complete. Also included is $1 million for start-up and
operational costs associated with opening the CVC, including one-time
costs such as furniture, equipment, computers and other necessary
items. GAO's ongoing analysis recommends adding $5 million to this
amount to accommodate risk for further time extension and contingency
for a total of $25.6 million for project cost-to-complete.
While recognizing that the cumulative effect of the projects listed
above represent a significant increase over fiscal year 2006 levels,
these projects were considered our highest priorities. Although hard
decisions were made to reduce the amount of our overall request,
further cuts will likely be necessary to accommodate Federal budget
limitations. Once again, this means that the projects that are
eliminated will be deferred to successive years where they will again
compete with other additional, significant projects for available
funding.
annual operating budget
Our fiscal year 2007 annual operating budget request of $356.3
million reflects the addition of significant mandatory price level
increases as well as new programs.
The key drivers of this increase include:
--Forty percent growth in utility costs over fiscal year 2006 enacted
levels due to the recent deregulation of electric power and the
increased cost of natural fuels following the devastation in
the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina last summer.
--Mandatory payroll increases and the addition of 91 FTEs to support
daily operations and maintenance of the Capitol Visitor Center
(CVC).
--One-time CVC operations costs to purchase furniture, equipment,
computers, and other necessary items.
--Re-establishing Information Technology base resources and upgrading
systems.
--Leases and/or maintenance and operations of additional facilities.
Utilities
With regard to utilities, in an effort to offset cost increases, we
have initiated a number of energy conservation measures. The first was
to develop two Energy Savings Performance Contracts to upgrade
equipment and save energy, at no additional cost to the government.
Contractors are paid from proven energy savings. Other efforts involve
developing a five-year plan to conduct energy audit surveys of all
buildings on the Capitol campus, and publishing a brochure about saving
energy throughout the Capitol complex to be distributed to Hill staff.
In addition, the Capitol Power Plant staff has successfully
completed a number of new maintenance projects to improve the
performance, safety, and reliability of the boiler house and chilled
water plants. As part of the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion
Project, three new chillers became operable in November 2005. With the
addition of this new equipment, we will experience greater efficiencies
at the Plant and remove old mechanically and environmentally outdated
machines.
CVC Day-to-Day Operations
In anticipation of the start-up and operational costs associated
with the Capitol Visitor Center, our annual operating budget request
includes funds to cover day-to-day operational and maintenance
requirements as well as anticipated one-time costs such as furniture
and equipment, computers, and other necessary items. Until such time as
the Congress decides the issue of reporting relationships and
governance of the CVC, we have included these costs in the AOC's
budget, including $10.6 million for payroll costs associated with the
hiring of an additional 91 FTEs.
Information Technology
Another factor driving our operating budget request for fiscal year
2007 is an increase in investment in information technology. In our
fiscal year 2006 budget request, we had cut the base resources in an
attempt to constrain growth. Our intention was to fund information
technology program shortfalls with lapses in payroll or other general
and administrative areas, but that strategy has not worked well in the
current fiscal environment due to rising costs of utilities and other
expenses. Therefore, we are requesting $25.7 million to re-establish
these base resources and to protect our IT systems by installing the
latest technology security programs as required, preparing for future
technological needs, and improving internal operations by replacing our
project information system and upgrading the interface of our inventory
control system to our financial system.
The February 2006 GAO Report notes that ``the agency has yet to
establish and implement key information security practices, such as
completing risk assessments on all of its major applications,
documenting the identified risks in system security plans, and
developing and implementing appropriate security controls to mitigate
the risks--including developing contingency plans for all systems and
applications. Until AOC completes and implements plans for improvement
that are consistent with all our recommendations, it will be challenged
in its ability to effectively use IT to optimize mission performance.''
Updating our IT systems is a crucial part of achieving these tasks as
outlined by GAO.
senate office building improvements
A number of projects that we have requested funding for in next
year's budget for the Senate Office Buildings focuses on upgrading and
replacing equipment that has exceeded its useful life expectancy or
updating the historic buildings to meet modern requirements. For
example, we are requesting $19.4 million to replace the air handling
units in the Dirksen Building to improve building ventilation and to
ensure the system's reliability since the existing equipment is more
than 40 years old and inefficient. We have also requested $6 million to
upgrade emergency lighting in the Russell Building; $15 million to
upgrade the fire alarm system in the Hart Building; and $5.8 million to
install an emergency generator in the Russell Building to provide
electrical power in an emergency.
capitol visitor center budget
While most of our projects are worked on behind the scenes,
underneath the East Front of the U.S. Capitol work is proceeding on the
largest and most complex project in the history of the Capitol--the
Capitol Visitor Center. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request would fund
CVC operations, administration, facility maintenance, and construction
cost-to-complete. The requested funding also would support the required
activities and programs for transitional and start-up costs, exhibits,
gift shops, telecommunications, and information technology
infrastructure support. The Capitol Preservation Commission (CPC)
supports the AOC's request for operational funding as an interim
measure until it is determined how, and by whom, the CVC will be
operated.
At our February hearing before this Subcommittee, we testified that
we are now anticipating the CVC to be completed, including
commissioning of life-safety systems, in March 2007, and available for
a formal opening in April 2007. We reported the two key issues
prompting that time extension are the delays in the delivery and
installation of interior stone due to a court injunction and a longer-
than-expected duration for the fire and life-safety acceptance testing
process.
The project schedule extension has impacted the overall project
cost-to-complete. Last fall, we concurred with GAO's assessment that
potential risks do exist and that additional funds would be necessary
should these risks turn into reality; most notably if completion of the
CVC occurred after December 2006, or if significant additional change
orders were required. After meetings held the past several months with
GAO and our construction manager, Gilbane, we anticipated that the
delay, along with additional change orders and the potential for future
project risks, could increase the project's cost-to-complete by
approximately $20.6 million. This is the amount we requested in the
fiscal year 2007 budget. GAO's ongoing review however, has resulted in
a revised estimate of the cost-to-complete which adds approximately $5
million to this amount for risk, further time extension, and
contingency. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, if you concur, we will work
with you to effect this adjustment in order to ensure that there are
adequate contingencies as we work to complete the CVC.
Further information on the status of the project and a construction
update is provided in my testimony specifically addressing the Capitol
Visitor Center which will be discussed following this portion of the
hearing (attached).
accomplishments
Over the past 10 years, the AOC has been undergoing a
transformation into a more strategic organization by implementing new
policies and procedures, while at the same time continuing to meet our
responsibilities as good stewards. I appreciate the efforts of AOC
employees in balancing their heavy workloads with implementing these
important changes to our organization.
At this time, I would like to highlight some of the major AOC
accomplishments of the past year. As GAO has noted in its February 2006
report, we have made significant progress in our transformation
efforts, we continue to make progress, but the ``transformation is a
long-term effort.''
Strategic Plan
A key component in this effort has been the implementation of our
Strategic Plan in 2003. The Plan has provided us with a blueprint for
change by defining our mission, vision, and core values and created a
structure of goals, and objectives through which we focus our efforts.
As we begin the third year of this five-year plan, it continues to
evolve. As part of our Strategic Performance Initiative, we are
developing and implementing meaningful performance measures that will
be linked to our daily activities and resource requirements. In the
spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act, we have developed
an ``AOC dashboard'' document which includes several high-level
indicators to track performance for each of our strategic goals as well
as a target goal for each indicator. Our senior leadership team meets
monthly to monitor these indicators and goals to ensure that we meet
the milestones we have set in our Performance Plan.
Work Orders
In fiscal year 2005, we completed nearly 34,200 work orders in the
Senate Office Buildings. To date, we have completed more than 19,000
work orders in fiscal year 2006. These are tasks that are requested of
the AOC rather than programmed by our Agency and the work ranges from
changing light bulbs, to fixing plumbing, to reconfiguring office space
and painting. A number of other projects were completed during the past
fiscal year. For example, we replaced the Rotunda balcony doors and
installed high voltage switch gear in the Russell Office Building; we
installed new modular walls and furniture in 10 Hart Building offices,
and installed new wall sconces in the Dirksen Building. In addition, we
completed the restoration of three Committee rooms in the Dirksen
Building and one Committee room in the Russell Building as well as
upgraded the audio and visual systems in these four rooms.
Special Events
The U.S. Capitol also was the site of a number of high-profile
events including the Presidential Inaugural ceremony, which the AOC
supported by building the platform, contracting for the audio system,
installing the security fencing and crowd control features, as well as
removing the snow that fell the night before the event. In October, we
prepared the Capitol Building for another historic occasion, the lying
in honor of Ms. Rosa Parks.
National Garden
This fall, we look forward to the grand opening of the National
Garden. This project is solely funded by private donations raised by
the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden. This not-for-profit
corporation raised the private funds pursuant to Public Law 102-229. It
the first public-private partnership project for the AOC. Last summer,
we authorized the third option to be awarded under this contract; the
construction of the First Ladies Water Garden. Construction on the
National Garden began in spring 2004 on the base bid which consisted of
the Rose Garden, Butterfly Garden, Lawn Terrace, and the Hornbeam
Court. Option one, the landscaped garden path that meanders through the
site, and option two, the Regional (Mid-Atlantic) Garden were
subsequently awarded. Construction is scheduled to be completed next
month and then landscaping and planting will occur on the site through
the spring and summer. A public opening is scheduled for October.
Decreased Injury and Illness Rate
For the fifth year in a row, the AOC's Injury and Illness rate
decreased. We dropped to 5.65 cases per 100 employees in fiscal year
2005, from a high of 17.9 cases per 100 employees in fiscal year 2000.
We posted a four percent reduction in our rate while, at the same time,
we faced the challenges of post-election office moves and an
Inauguration, in addition to meeting our daily work demands. While I am
proud of these accomplishments, I will not be satisfied until we
achieve our ultimate goal of a workplace free of injury and illness. To
make that goal a reality, we continue to educate and train our
workforce and assure that our employees have the requisite equipment
they need to do their jobs safely. We also took action and reduced
injury and illness rates on the CVC construction site. The rate
declined from 9.1 in 2003 and 12.2 in 2004, to 5.9 for the first 10
months of 2005--below the 2003 industry average of 6.1.
Financial Statements
We have also made great strides in generating more reliable annual
financial statements. In 2005, we published our first accountability
report and earned an unqualified opinion for the second consecutive
year on the AOC balance sheet. Our Office of the Chief Financial
Officer developed processes and procedures in anticipation of the first
full audit of the full set of financial statements for fiscal year
2005.
Employee Feedback Program and Action Plans
Last year, as part of our strategic planning efforts, we developed
a comprehensive employee feedback program. As part of that initiative,
I invited AOC employees to participate in focus groups where they
identified problems and suggested ways to help us solve them in order
to improve the organization. Over the past year, we created a series of
action plans that addressed the issues raised. Specifically, we:
--Improved internal communication by sharing best practices in
customer service AOC-wide.
--Are establishing basic standards for written communication to make
it easier for all employees to read and understand Agency
documents. Published a Correspondence Manual and Style Guide
for all written documents.
--Are requiring regular staff meetings and providing training on how
to conduct effective staff meetings.
--Have established AOC-wide Town Hall Meetings.
--Are including specific training to enhance communications skills in
our Leadership Development Program (mandatory for all
supervisors).
--Explained and communicated the Agency mission in an easy to retain
slogan: Serving Congress with a Commitment to Excellence.
--Improved transparency by publishing and explaining approved
organization charts and promoting consistency and fairness in
workforce classification.
--Issued AOC policies on Employee Feedback, Performance Evaluation,
and Awards and improved general policy knowledge by instituting
easy to read one-page summaries explaining these policies.
--Improved Internal Service Providers' customer orientation, making
them more accessible.
Performance Metrics
Finally, we continue to regularly collect, track, and manage
operational performance metrics that are linked to our Strategic Plan
goals through a variety of tools and processes. These tools not only
help improve communication among AOC managers and staff, but have also
led to process improvements in several areas. In addition, it has
helped to improve our communication and outreach to Congressional
leadership and our oversight committees regarding our performance. We
continue to work with Congress and GAO to further identify areas for
improvement while balancing our long-term goals and our day-to-day
responsibilities.
I want to thank the Committee for its support without which we
could not have undertaken these efforts and completed many critical
projects, continued to provide exemplary services, and assured
continuity of operations at the Capitol, in the Senate Office
Buildings, and throughout the Capitol complex.
conclusion
The AOC is dedicated to serving Congress with a commitment to
excellence.
In its February 2006 report to Congress, the GAO stated that the
``AOC has been working for several years to transform itself into a
more strategic and accountable organization and to improve worker
safety. This transformation is a long-term effort that involves a
fundamental change in AOC's culture.'' It also noted that ``AOC
operates in a challenging environment: the agency must preserve and
modernize these high-profile, historic buildings while meeting the
needs of Congress--including its leadership, committees, individual
members, and staffs--and the visiting public.''
Since the implementation of our Strategic Plan, GAO writes that:
--``To strengthen human capital management, AOC had, among other
things, linked its employee evaluation system to mission-
critical goals, established monthly management meetings to
share and assess data from employee relations offices, and
identified a number of ways to collect, report, and analyze
workforce data.''
--``To improve worker safety, AOC has made progress in developing
safety policies, implementing a system to track investigations
of incidents and follow up, completing a job hazard analysis
process to report hazards, and establishing a safety-training
curriculum that fully supports the goals of the safety
policies.''
--``To further improve financial management, AOC is developing an
agencywide internal control framework and a cost accounting
system, which are essential to improving accountability across
all AOC operations.''
--``To further improve communication with employees, AOC has
implemented a variety of communication methods to convey
information to employees, including a weekly newsletter on
project updates, policy announcements, management and
communication tips, and other agencywide messages.''
--``The AOC recycling program has undergone significant expansion
over the past five years, while at the same time becoming more
efficient. The program has also been expanded by increasing the
number of locations at which recycling is taking place.''
--``AOC has also taken important initial steps to address the
management and structure needed to establish a sound IT
investment management process, such as assigning roles,
responsibilities, and the authority needed to manage its IT
investment portfolio.''
--``To improve project management, AOC created a clearly defined,
well-documented, and transparent process for evaluating and
prioritizing projects.''
Mr. Chairman, my team and I are committed to fulfilling our
responsibilities over the long-term, although that it means, at times,
we have to make tough choices with regard to how we prioritize our
projects or how we manage our clients' expectations. Our request for
funds for fiscal year 2007 is in direct response to our responsibility
as good stewards to maintain and preserve the facilities and national
treasures under our care. In addition, we continue to strive to achieve
a high level of safety, security, preservation, and cleanliness
expected across the Capitol complex.
I am very proud of the dedicated professionals who make up the AOC
team and I am privileged to lead this remarkable organization. I
greatly appreciate the Committee's support in helping us achieve our
goals.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET INCREASE
Senator Allard. If it's all right, Senator Durbin, I'm
going to run the time clock on this, I'll take 5 minutes and
then you can have 5 minutes and I'll do my best to abide by
that.
Mr. Hantman, I guess I've had a couple of shocks this
morning. The first one was somewhat expected, that's the huge
increase in your budget request. How do you justify an increase
of this magnitude?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my statement,
I really didn't prepare this budget in a vacuum. I recognized
the difficult financial conditions that the entire Government
has. When I quoted the direction that I received from this
subcommittee several years ago, to take a look at the condition
assessments, I really had to evaluate what my role was as
steward of these buildings and these treasures here on Capitol
Hill. What we did is we went through a prioritization process
which originally included something like 36 projects or so. We
prioritized them in accordance with the methodology that I
included in my testimony here. The methodology is an overall
planning process that takes into account fire and life safety
codes, preservation of historic and legacy elements, impact on
our mission, including client urgency, economics, and physical
security. All of these issues were evaluated. We then looked
into the issue of rating these projects, whether the condition
of these projects and the areas that they were meant to serve
``adequate'', ``substandard'' or ``deficient''. We then further
rated them as to urgency and accomplishing them in terms of
immediate, high, medium, et cetera. In coming up with the list
of 19 projects that survived that list of 36, Mr. Chairman, we
eliminated some $43 million worth of projects. What we wanted
to do was actually discuss the criteria, the methodology we
went through to select these projects.
I recognize that we have to cut back on the numbers that we
have over here. But in the spirit of the report that this
subcommittee directed us to do years ago, to do the
assessments; I thought it was important to bring forward to the
subcommittee, the nature, the magnitude of the issues that we
have building up here on Capitol Hill.
The more projects we put off, the more projects we have to
plan for in future budgets. And there are more projects that
keep coming up in terms of the age of the infrastructure and
the buildings we have here.
So I don't presume, Mr. Chairman, to ask more than other
Federal agencies. I don't presume to go over whatever budget
cap is realistic in this. I just wanted to make the point that
basically, if we're going to be good stewards, and fulfill, in
fact, the mission that this subcommittee gave us years ago,
that we bring to the attention of the Congress what needs to be
done and work together to find out how best to do this, how to
spread it out over the years, and make sure that these
facilities are good for future generations and that the fire
and life safety standards are in fact met.
UTILITY TUNNEL CONDITIONS
Senator Allard. I appreciate you laying this all out for
us. We're just going to have to do some tough priority setting
as we move forward in this subcommittee.
The other shock I had was the condition of the utility
tunnels. I have some pictures here that were taken, apparently
the inside of the tunnel in some areas, and I'm shocked at the
amount of crumbling of the structure and the rusting that's
going on in some of the old pipes. It seems to me we really
have to get after this. Why isn't this your highest priority?
And can you give us a better idea of what we may be looking at,
are we tearing up streets? I'm concerned about safety
considerations, when we have cement walls that are crumbling,
asbestos is okay, as long as it's not in a state where it's
moving, and it's moving. Walls are crumbling. I'm worried about
the potential of risk to the workers and everyone that happen
to use that tunnel. I wish you'd comment on that please.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Clearly that is an
issue and there's no doubt that more work is necessary within
the tunnels. When we first started looking at this, and this
was well before the citation back in the year 2000. We
recognized that there were two issues that we needed to deal
with. One of them was the immediate issue of the condition of
the tunnel and the workmen who go down there on a daily basis
to maintain the condition. We recognized that it was a long-
term solution, that we could not rip up all the streets around
the Capitol complex, we have some 12,000 lineal feet of tunnel
here. And, in fact, as I indicated before 600 feet of that was
ripped up on Constitution Avenue as the first priority that was
identified in this project because of not only the needs in the
tunnel itself, but also because of the traffic that goes on top
of that tunnel. Every time we look at the major issues, we
recognize that there's an awful lot of inconvenience that will
occur to the Congress, to the Capitol, to our community as we
rip up streets. Part of the $1.8 million we have in the
reprogramming will be going toward a design for the next
section which was almost in as bad shape as the section under
Constitution Avenue, in front of the Senate Office buildings.
This is on Second Street, to the south of the Madison Library
of Congress office building. We're doing a study on it. We
fully expect that we're going to have disruptions, major
concerns from the community, from ourselves. We don't control
the streets under which our steam lines run over there. And
that would be our next focus as identified in the original
report. But while we recognize that the major ripping up of
streets where we've got so many going on right now, as you
know, East Capitol Street, we have this new steam tunnel going
in for the Capitol Visitor Center, on South Capitol Street, we
ripped it up for other steam and infrastructure utility lines.
We're nearing the completion of that, we're still doing it on E
Street in front of the Power Plant. How much construction
fatigue can the Congress take? How much disruption can the
community take at one time? That's what we have to work out
with respect to the major projects. And we fully expect as we
get through our studies on this next section of the ``R''
tunnel, as it's called, past the Madison Building, will cost us
millions of dollars and we'll have to be talking to the
subcommittee about how that gets funded.
But the immediate priority was the Constitution Avenue
tunnel, while these things were being phased over multiple
years. The plan was never to finish all of this work by the
year 2002. Past budget requests will indicate that we showed
tens of millions of dollars in out-years to solve all of these
problems. Our immediate problem was to make it as safe as we
could for the people who work there on a day-to-day basis.
So as we went through the years, each--we installed a leaky
cable communication system in the tunnels, through the main
tunnel system as I indicated before. By this summer, we should
have the small stub tunnels, leading from those main
communication cables to each building, taken care of as well.
We implemented emergency shoring and repairs to the tunnels and
we've done so every year since the year 2000 when this came
about.
So people have been going into those tunnels, looking out
for spalls, taking care of those spalls, so that it is less
dangerous for the people who go in there. We've also initiated
three person work teams where one person would stay outside of
the manhole and two people using their radio communications,
would go inside the manhole and they would be able to talk
about things. I met with the tunnel crew last week Mr.
Chairman, listened to all of the issues that they had, to the
concerns that they had, and the highest priorities they saw
which basically amounted to the ``Y'' tunnel, which is where a
lot of our focus and studies are going into at this point as
well.
So we have been trying to move forward on the day-to-day
life safety while we're planning the long term projects which
require greater funding and have a greater impact on the
community.
Senator Allard. Let me call on my colleague, Senator
Durbin. I know he is shocked as I am at the condition of those
tunnels and I think he's got some questions he wants to ask in
that regard.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Mr. Hantman, this is
unprecedented is it not, that the Office of Compliance would
file a complaint against the Architect's Office?
Mr. Hantman. That's my understanding, sir.
Senator Durbin. And it's been noted now for 6 years or more
that there were problems, hazards and dangers to employees in
these tunnels, is that not true?
Mr. Hantman. That is true, sir.
Senator Durbin. I understand budgets because I've served on
the Appropriations Committee on the House and Senate, and been
on this subcommittee for some time. But I cannot believe that
if you felt that this was a life threatening situation and came
to Congress that we wouldn't have responded. Did you feel this
was a life threatening situation?
Mr. Hantman. We felt that there was certainly conditions
down there that needed to be ameliorated so that it would not
be a life safety situation.
Senator Durbin. I think you said yes, that you felt it was
a life threatening situation.
Mr. Hantman. Certainly with spalling concrete coming off,
that could be certainly a life safety situation, yes.
Senator Durbin. And I have to ask you why you didn't make
this plea to Congress, saying the lives of workman are at stake
here. When I look at this, it's a lengthy survey done by the
Office of Compliance, the conclusions at one part say,
``neither the conditions, nor the protective measures for
either asbestos or heat stress have improved for tunnel shop
employees between the OOC report of August 24, 1999 and the
inspection made for this report.'' And they have cited in here
as I'm sure you've read ample evidence that the workers whether
they knew it or not, were exposed to asbestos hazard during 5
or 6 years while they were working in these conditions. Were
you aware of that exposure?
Mr. Hantman. We have worked in--we have five tunnels sir.
One of them is the ``V'' tunnel for instance. We completed
abating the asbestos in that tunnel last year. We have money in
the project loop right now, in procurement for the ``B'' tunnel
to abate the--we are--one of the comments that the chairman
made before in terms of encapsulating asbestos, we recognize
that we have asbestos in all of our buildings and all of our
tunnels around the campus. As long as it's encapsulated and
safe we will be replacing that as we can, as we go down the
road with various projects.
Most of these tunnels have had encapsulated work
accomplished. The ``B'' tunnel, for instance, had new jacketing
put on it. That jacketing is now wearing out. We have a
$200,000 project to abate the work in that tunnel.
EMPLOYEE SAFETY IN THE TUNNELS
Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, did you warn the workers that
they were going to expose themselves to inhalation of asbestos
if they worked in the tunnels that were not protected?
Mr. Hantman. The workers were aware of these asbestos
issues. We worked to repair problems when they saw an asbestos
issue, or we had the construction management division go in to
inspect, we would go in and repair those particular sections
and make sure that they were encapsulated.
Senator Durbin. Did the workers wear any protective
breathing device working around this asbestos?
Mr. Hantman. They are now, sir.
Senator Durbin. When did that start?
Mr. Hantman. This is just starting.
Senator Durbin. Why did we wait so long to protect these
workers?
Mr. Hantman. We were working in those tunnels, we had
constant inspections going on in those tunnels. We recognized
that we needed to do full tunnel work as we did on Constitution
Avenue to make sure that--and as we did on the ``V'' tunnel
that we can take care of it as a total project while we were
encapsulating segments as we went along.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Hantman, I would have to tell you that
perhaps I have a heightened interest in this with the debate we
just went through on the asbestos issue. And having met scores
of widows and widowers of people suffering--who suffered from
mesothelioma and asbestosis. There's not a single one of us in
this room who knows for sure that we haven't been exposed to
asbestos that will kill us. In this circumstance, we knew that
there was asbestos, we knew that it was a hazard to workers,
and literally waited years before we provided safety devices
for these workers to protect them. How could we possibly
explain that to the workers or their families?
Mr. Hantman. We had ongoing inspections but clearly they
were not adequate. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Well that's cold comfort. I appreciate your
admission, but I think it tells that we have done a great
disservice to these workers and their families. And I hope of
all the priorities which we face on Capitol Hill, that the
first priority will be the safety of the men and women who work
here and visit here. And if that is the case, I want to say to
you point blank. If you do not come forward with requests for
life safety measures and protective devices to protect these
workers then you're not doing your duty.
You need to call on us, and if we fail then it's on our
shoulders but knowing this for 5 or 6 years, and not responding
to it, and exposing workers to these potential life threatening
situations that's entirely unacceptable. And to think that it
would happen on Capitol Hill, the seat of our Government, the
symbol of who we are as a people, makes it even worse. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Well I'd like to agree with Senator Durbin
on his comments. I do think that we have to get moving quickly
on this, we need to get it taken care of. I understand your
concerns about disrupting traffic, part of it's on Constitution
Avenue. But I think that we need to get a plan in place quickly
as to how we can deal with this, and somehow or other find the
resources to begin to get this situation rectified as much as
possible, and get the city to understand that this is a serious
problem and it needs to be dealt with. I know it's going to
create some travel inconveniences, but I just think it has to
be done.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman if I might add to that. Mr.
Hantman said how much construction fatigue can Congress take,
he went onto talk about how much disruption of traffic can the
community take. Well I'm prepared to face both of those
challenges but I'm not prepared to face the families of these
workers and tell them we didn't do everything humanly possible
to protect them in the workplace.
TUNNEL REPAIR PLANS
Mr. Hantman. We have requested $1.75 million in this budget
to do further studies and work on that, in addition to the $1.8
million that we've recently reprogrammed. We will certainly get
back to you in terms of what those studies are showing and the
priorities in terms of those dollars.
Senator Allard. I don't know what kind of time line you
were thinking about, but we need to expedite this. I hope that
you can come back with an expedited plan. Give us a better idea
of what this total thing is going to cost, so we can deal with
it, and begin to plan for it. We've got a lot of things that
are on that list, but in my view this needs to be toward the
top of the list. We need to somehow begin to address it right
away. You now have the feeling of this subcommittee that we
think this is important, and we need to expedite it. I hope
that you would look at the budget request that you've made and
see what we can do now to begin to address these problems. I
agree with Senator Durbin, the traffic and inconvenience to
Members of Congress and our staff, that's a minor issue
relative to the seriousness of what we have here. We need to
deal with it.
TRACKING OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE CITATIONS
Are you keeping a list of possible problems that are
erupting so that we don't get to this problem in some future
time? Where the Office of Compliance has pointed out a problem
or potential problem, is it being catalogued so that we can see
what might be coming down the pike so that we can begin to meet
these challenges as they face the committee?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do meet regularly with the
Office of Compliance and they have over the years, since 1999,
issued a variety of citations. We work to abate those and
request funding as necessary to abate those. We meet with them
on a regular basis to update them on the status of the
abatement of those citations.
CAPITAL PROJECTS AND THE LIBRARY LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE PRIORITIZATION
Senator Allard. Let me move onto capital projects. Your
budget includes 19 major capital projects, totaling about
$143.7 million. Could you describe the process, referred to as
the line item construction program, you went through to come
with this list of projects?
The projects are ranked based on their urgency and the type
of project, now how is a library storage facility ranked number
nine on this list?
Mr. Hantman. As I indicated Mr. Chairman, when we
originally started looking at projects, and the importance and
the ranking on the list, we had some 36 projects there. The
library logistics warehouse was number 35 on that list, because
we ranked it as a high need, but not an immediate need. What
happens when you get to all of the fire and life safety, the
preservation, the economics, the physical security issues and
you rank that, and you look at the current condition of various
projects, you'll note that's one of the few projects on our
request which is a new project as opposed to something that
needs to be repaired and maintained. Originally that was not
ranked high on the list, it was number 35 as opposed to where
it is right now, in number 9. The Librarian expressed very
strong need and concern that it was an ``immediate'' priority.
We have not done facility condition assessments for the Library
as of yet. We hope to get that funding in here so we can
actually do the type of analysis we talked about before. So in
terms of the final overview, once you go through all the fire
and life safety, the physical security, the deficiencies, and
things like that, the urgency of the project is the element
that is the last overlay on that. So our priority was
originally ``high'', the Librarian indicated that was an
``immediate'' project, very important. And so it was on that
basis that it was raised to--it's the lowest of the
``immediate'' projects on our list which is number nine. We
have eight ``immediate'' above it, all the rest below it are
``high''.
If it had not been ranked as ``immediate'' at the
Librarian's request it would have been number 35 in the project
list and would not have been requested.
DIRKSEN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Senator Allard. The Dirksen infrastructure improvements
total somewhere about $19.4 million, can you describe these
improvements and tell us where the project can be broken down
into phases so as to lessen the price tag in fiscal year 2007.
Mr. Hantman. This again Mr. Chairman, is an important
project. Basically what we're looking at over here, is we think
that this project could be phased in multiple years. As far as
the Dirksen project is concerned, the current situation is that
it's calling for the replacement of air handling units in the
Dirksen Office Building. They're an integrated piece of
equipment, they consist of fans, heating units, coils, et
cetera, and we currently have 21 air handling units serving the
building right now. There are 12 of them on the seventh floor
of the Dirksen Senate Office Building that have to be replaced.
These are air handlers that are over 40 years old. They've
exceeded their useful life, and they're very inefficient.
So this project would replace those 12 air handler units
with new units that have replaceable filters, steam preheat
coils, clean steam humidifiers, variable frequency drive
motors, direct digital control systems. The work would include
reconnecting the main units, et cetera. If not funded, the
building ventilation will gradually worsen and the units will
fail in the near future. Just when in the near future, we
wouldn't know exactly but in terms of good process and
procedure, this could happen.
We've taken a look at this project Mr. Chairman, and we
think it could be phased by stack especially. Specifically on
the north stack, there's a center stack, and a south stack in
the Dirksen Building. Phasing would require increased project
coordination, some increased administrative costs, and
contractor overhead, things like this. But we think it could be
phased into three pieces.
Senator Allard. Do you have an idea about how that would
affect the cost of the project?
Mr. Hantman. Yes, in the--we think that for this first
year, we could do the south wing for three air handling units
for $6.5 million, next year we could do the center wing for
$8.4 million, and the north wing in the following year for some
$6 million. This would add about a $1.5 million in additional
costs to the project, but it could be spread out over 3 years.
CONSTRUCTION OVERHEAD COSTS
Senator Allard. Thank you. The Architect of the Capitol's
construction overhead costs include more than 10 percent for
contract administration and construction management. Other
agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and the naval
facilities engineering command include costs in the range of 6
to 8 percent. What do AOC's overhead costs support and why are
your overhead costs higher than these other ones mentioned?
Mr. Hantman. We can certainly respond to the record for
that if we could Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Okay. If you would please.
[The information follows:]
The AOC's overhead costs consists of the following:
Construction Contingency Cost.--This is added to the total
Estimated Construction Contract Cost (ECCC) to allow for change
orders. The percentage typically ranges between 5 percent to 10
percent for new construction and 10 percent to 15 percent for
renovation work. The higher contingency percentage for
renovation work is due to the greater likelihood that during
renovation unknown or unforeseen conditions may be encountered.
Implementation Cost.--These are administrative costs added
to the Estimated Construction Project Cost (the accumulated
ECCC plus Contingency) to support the AOC's costs during
project execution. These include: (1) Construction
Administration, (2.5 percent)--this is usually a contract with
the A/E firm performing the design, or the A/E firm who
performed the design, to account for shop drawing submittal
reviews, answering Requests for Information (RFIs), and any
additional technical services related to interpretation of the
drawings and specifications during construction, and the
percentage applied is an industry-accepted standard; (2) AOC
Construction Management, (8 percent)--this amount is set aside
to pay for Term AOC employees hired as Construction Managers,
who are the COTRs during construction, and Construction
Inspectors, who provide daily quality assurance during
construction execution; (3) Government Testing, Inspection and
Quality Control, (2.5 percent)--this amount is provided to
allow for independent testing, inspections services, or quality
control services that may be required. Such instances include
specialized testing or field verification that specified design
parameters have been met, and independent validation of
information necessary to resolve contractor disputes.
Project Management Cost.--This amount provides for
professional associate (contract) or temporary in-house project
management staff when execution of a specific project or group
of projects cannot be met with internal resources. At the
present time, temporary project management staff are funded by
the LOC Fort Meade projects to provide for overall program
execution at that location. Previously, this allocation was
used to execute portions of the Emergency Response Fund
projects because at that time there was an inadequate dedicated
project management staff to support that program. This
percentage--currently set at 5 percent--was inadvertently
applied to some of the fiscal year 2007 project requests.
Specific estimating guidance has since been issued to clarify
that it is to be applied only under the circumstances noted
above.
The AOC has not analyzed other agency overhead cost
structures. The AOC is undertaking a series of processes to
determine how its overhead costs are spent, and over time will
be in a much better position to support its actual cost
requirements based on financial history matched to project
performance. In addition, the Government Accountability Office
has offered to provide the AOC with technical advice in this
specific area.
WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT PROJECT
Senator Allard. On the west refrigeration plant, this $100
million project is behind schedule by 5 or 6 months, and over
budget. What is the current schedule for completion?
Mr. Hantman. The current schedule is by July of this year,
we should have the units up and running, with a combination of
controls, as well as manual controls so that we could be
producing the chilled water that we need throughout the campus.
By the end of the year all those controls should be in place,
so that the manual operation would no longer be needed.
Senator Allard. Can you assure us that no additional funds
are going to be needed?
Mr. Hantman. We are reprogramming dollars in this year's
budget as you know Mr. Chairman, to the tune of about $4.7
million. The main reason that these funds were needed is that
there were two unforeseen conditions at the Power Plant. One of
them was the extent of the contaminated soil under the existing
coal pile. We needed to remediate that. Another was a gas main
that was on Virginia Avenue in the way of the relocated sewer
line that we had to take care of. With those two projects, that
basically took the full reprogramming value and we would have
been pretty much on budget, without having to reprogram,
without those two elements.
So, yes, we're expecting that this reprogramming should be
able to get us to home base.
WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT PROJECT CHALLENGES
Senator Allard. What are the biggest challenges you've
confronted with a project, and what are some lessons learned?
Mr. Hantman. Well, the two project elements that I
mentioned were the biggest challenges, and that is true Mr.
Chairman, of any project we do here on Capitol Hill. The
documentation is just not very good in terms of existing
drawings and all. That was certainly the case with the gas line
on Virginia Avenue. It wasn't shown in the right place, in
terms of where it really was. Another challenge that we faced
on the Power Plant, was the reason that project was initiated
in the first place. This goes back to the type of issues that
we have with facility conditions throughout the campus. How do
you know something's going to fail? Do you replace a roof
before it fails, or do you do it because its life expectancy
has really been achieved. So when we looked at the east
refrigeration plant, it actually has EPA, noncompliant elements
in it. We wanted to replace it. It was over 40 years old. It
wasn't performing efficiently. We had planned on essentially
using it long enough to be able to take down the existing west
refrigeration plant units, put them online, hook them up and
have the east plant run through the winter so that we could do
that, and the full load would be on that. Unfortunately, we had
two of those units fail. Their life expectancy certainly was
there, we knew that was happening, and the same issue is, when
will something fail?
So we had to essentially, while the west refrigeration
plant was up and running, make those changes. So that was
something that cost us time and it cost us money, Mr. Chairman.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTS ON POWER PLANT STAFFING
Senator Allard. Now, GAO recently reported that the
Architect of the Capitol hasn't made sufficient progress in
planning to staff the modernized Power Plant efficiently and
ensure plant personnel are trained to operate it safely.
According to the GAO, the plant has about twice as many
employees as are needed for efficient operation and has since
at least 1996. What are your plans for right-sizing the Power
Plant while ensuring equity to all employees?
Mr. Hantman. We have a consultant--Ross is doing a detailed
functional analysis, regarding staffing reductions. We think
they are possible. We are at the process, Mr. Chairman, we
don't have the new equipment up and all the controls in place
at this point in time. So we need to take a look at training
the people in--on our staff, for automation of the plant, and
cross train those people to make sure that they can do multiple
jobs efficiently. We believe this can happen, once we have the
new plant online. We are concurrently working on doing training
right now, so that we can essentially right size and cross
train people to bring it more in line with the ultimate
staffing that's necessary. And our new director certainly will
have his eyes and ears on that and make sure that we do it the
right way.
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGET
Senator Allard. You've been listening to some of my
concerns in the past hearings on performance-based budgets and
I understand you're taking some action to develop a
performance-based budget to measure outcomes. I'd like to know
how you're coming along on that initiative?
Mr. Ayers. Sure, thank you Mr. Chairman. We do have several
strategic performance initiatives underway, and performance-
based budgeting is one of them. If I could just step back for a
moment though. All of these refer back to our strategic plan
that we developed in 2003. That strategic plan is centered
around four goal areas: facilities management, project
management, human capital, and organizational excellence. And
to implement that plan, it's accompanied by a performance plan
that includes 16 objectives, 175 specific milestones, as well
as over 300 individual activities necessary to achieve those
goals. In addition to simply measuring our progress against
achieving those milestones, we've developed a series of
performance indicators that enable us to track the health of
the organization on an ongoing basis. We call this our
dashboard. We've developed some 25 different performance
metrics, that we review on a monthly basis, myself and Mr.
Hantman, with a team of senior managers.
To take that strategic plan to the next level, we believe
requires the implementation of a cost accounting system as well
as a performance-based budgeting system, those--both of those
processes are underway now. We believe that's a year long
effort, we've recently added staff to our cost accounting
division to begin the full implementation of that program and
we look forward to presenting to you in 2008 our first
performance-based budget.
INTERNAL CONTROLS IMPLEMENTATION
Senator Allard. I'm looking forward to that, and thank you
for your efforts. According to GAO, it's critical the Architect
of the Capitol develop strong internal controls, including a
reliable cost accounting system and sound procurement
practices, can you tell us what you've done in this area, and
identify the resources you've requested in your budget to
address these needs.
Mr. Ayers. Certainly Mr. Chairman, thank you. We have begun
the roll out of a comprehensive internal controls program. This
has been, in fact, in our strategic plan since 2003. The first
phase of that, as we've selected three of the--what we feel
most important functions of our organization. Our procure to
pay, or how we purchase materials, as well as our payroll and
project management systems. As part of this internal controls
program, we'll take each of those systems and break them down
to each of their individual components, review them to
determine what specific financial and managerial controls need
to be in place to be able to achieve the end result. We're well
in process on the first three of those. Once those are
complete, we'll bring in another handful of our business
processes and run them through the same process. Ultimately
we'll have gone through all of our strategic business
processes; run them all through this program to develop a sound
internal controls program. We do have two FTEs requested in our
2007 budget to enable us to continue that, and expand that
internal controls as well as the cost accounting program.
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Senator Allard. Your contract management has been subject
to some criticism. What are you doing to try and improve it?
Mr. Ayers. I think one of the most important initiatives
we've undertaken, is the development of a comprehensive core
competency program, both for our project managers as well as
for our procurement employees. That's a terrific program, and
our employees are run through an appropriations law class, a
contract management class, I think that's been our most
important initiative in that area.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER SELECTION
Senator Allard. Okay. Let me ask you Mr. Hantman, about the
position of Chief Financial Officer. This seems to me like a
critical position to get filled. How are we doing on filling
this position?
Mr. Hantman. I think we're going well Mr. Chairman, we
empaneled--a panel essentially last week, which includes
Stephen Ayers, it includes the CFOs of the Government
Accountability Office and the Government Printing Office. Some
53 resumes are being reviewed right now. Clearly that's a
critically important position and the process is moving along.
Senator Allard. That's all the questions that the
subcommittee has. I would like to thank you for your
participation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
The subcommittee on legislative branch will stand in
recess, until Wednesday, April 5, 2006 when it will hear
testimony from the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police Board.
Thank you.
[Whereupon at 11:15 a.m., Wednesday, March 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
April 5.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
U.S. SENATE
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND
DOORKEEPER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. This
morning, we meet to take testimony on the fiscal year 2007
budget requests for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the
Senate, U.S. Capitol Police, and the Capitol Guide Service and
Special Services Office.
We welcome our witnesses this morning. First, we will hear
from the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, Mr.
William Pickle. Good morning, Mr. Pickle.
Mr. Pickle. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. The Sergeant at Arms' budget request total
is $224 million, an increase of about $25 million or 12 percent
over the current year. The budget would fund an additional 34
employees as well as implement additional security initiatives.
Funding is also included to continue the telephone replacement
project.
Following the Sergeant at Arms, we will hear from the
Capitol Police Board, currently chaired by House Sergeant at
Arms Bill Livingood. Good morning, Bill.
The Board is requesting $295 million for the Capitol
Police, an increase of $48 million or almost 20 percent over
the current year. The request includes 101 additional sworn
officers and seven additional administrative employees, which
would bring the department staffing to a total of 2,180
employees.
The budget includes $28 million for overtime, about $8
million more than the police department anticipates will be
needed this year, and we have some concerns about that level.
Finally, we will again hear from Mr. Livingood, this time
as chairman of the Capitol Guide Board. Also present is Tom
Stevens, the head of the Capitol Guide Service and
Congressional Special Services Office.
The Board is requesting $8.5 million for the Guide Service.
This is an increase of $4.6 million over the current budget,
with the expectation that 71 additional guides and visitor
services employees will be needed to operate the Capitol
Visitor Center (CVC) in fiscal year 2007.
Before we begin this hearing, I would like to say thank you
to outgoing Chief Terry Gainer. Today is his last day on the
job, and I appreciate all the good work he has done to improve
the Capitol Police force and serve the Congress. The department
is stronger, better trained and equipped, and more capable than
when Chief Gainer took the helm 2 years ago. I wish him luck in
his next adventure.
Before I finish my statements, we have Senator Burns, Mr.
Pickle, who has some questions that he has asked us to put
forward. After the hearing, we will submit those questions to
you with the hope that you can get back with a response within
10 days. So, if you could respond to those questions at a later
date after we have finished the hearing, we would appreciate
that, Mr. Pickle. And so, having made that initial request, Mr.
Pickle, please go ahead. We look forward to hearing your
comments.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. PICKLE
Mr. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks again for
inviting me to testify this morning. As I have said in the last
2 or 3 years that I have been here and appeared before this
subcommittee, I am so pleased to represent the hundreds of men
and women who comprise the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. I
don't think you are going to find a more dedicated or committed
group of Federal employees anywhere, and I am sure that you and
this subcommittee share that belief as well, after witnessing
the great job they do. Mr. Chairman, I have a much more formal
statement. You stole a little of my thunder in your opening
remarks. So, I am going to ask that my formal statement be
submitted for the record, and I will just talk for a couple of
minutes, if I may.
As you indicated, we have asked for about $224 million or
about a 12.8-percent increase over our 2006 appropriation.
These funds will continue to allow us to provide the service
that is so important to the Senate. In particular, the increase
that is reflected in this budget covers our telecommunications
modernization project. It also covers 34 positions, as you
indicated, 17 of which are designated for the CVC. The other
positions are spread out over our areas of technology and
security. In addition, we are funding some initiatives in our
Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness. These
initiatives haven't been fully covered previously in any
recurring budget request, and I think probably what we are
going to see in out-years, too, is continued growth in that
area. But this year, there is a sizable increase, as you noted,
in our security and emergency preparedness allocation.
Mr. Chairman, in my formal statement, I talk about a number
of challenges that we have met successfully and a number of
accomplishments that this office, and particularly the staff,
has achieved. I want to take a minute to introduce the senior
management team here, because they are outstanding. I am going
to start with my Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Lynne Halbrooks. The
Executive Assistant who is the Democratic Leader's
Representative is Nancy Erickson. Greg Hanson is our Chief
Information Officer and Assistant Sergeant at Arms. Chuck
Kaylor is the Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and
Emergency Preparedness. Al Concordia is the Assistant Sergeant
at Arms for Police Operations and Liaison. Esther Gordon is the
Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Operations, and Dan Strodel is
our General Counsel. I also want to acknowledge, and I know he
is going to be a little embarrassed by this, my Chief Financial
Officer, Chris Dey. Chris works very closely with Carrie
Apostolou and Nancy Olkewicz, and Chris is the ultimate
professional, as Carrie and Nancy can attest to. He keeps us
straight. He keeps me out of financial problems with this
subcommittee, and we are just very delighted to have him.
Senator Allard. I appreciate you introducing your staff and
having them here this morning.
I couldn't agree with you more, I think you have got a good
staff.
GUIDING PRINCIPALS
Mr. Pickle. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Last
year, when I testified, I talked about the three guiding
principals that we follow in doing a better job here at the
Senate. The first one is to continue to maintain security of
this complex. Since 9/11, the whole world has changed here.
Maintaining security is very expensive and very complex, and we
work closely with the Capitol Police to do the best job we can.
The second focus is to follow the leadership's mandate to
provide state-of-the-art technology. I don't think anyone can
ever have state-of-the-art technology. You know, Moore's Law
says everything changes every 1\1/2\ years or so. Well, we are
close to state-of-the-art, and it's only because of this
subcommittee's support that we have reached the level that we
have. And finally, it's rather cliche, but customer service
continues to be a guiding force in the Sergeant at Arms office.
It is used over and over again, and sometimes it loses its
meaning. But when you have over 100 business units as we do and
roughly 950 people working here within the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms, you have a lot of exposure to a very
demanding community. I think our people do a great job. I often
hear about it when we don't. I seldom hear about it when we do.
But we try, they try, and customer service is still our
priority.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Mr. Chairman, there is one final thing I want to do. I want
to talk briefly about our strategic plan. I know how important
GPRA is to you, and I know how you like to hold each of the
agencies under you accountable. We have been working on a
strategic plan for the last 6 to 9 months. It's a very
comprehensive plan. I think that you will see the seriousness
with which we view this plan, and I expect to share it with the
subcommittee very soon. We would welcome any comments from you
or your staff.
Senator Allard. Very good. We look forward to that.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you. Finally, I want to digress for just
a moment. You mentioned Chief Terry Gainer, and I just want to
acknowledge, on our part from the Senate side, how much we will
miss him. Chief Gainer is the ultimate professional. I think he
is arguably one of the best Chiefs of Police in the country.
When you talk to people in the law enforcement community, they
echo those sentiments. We often use the word leadership.
Leadership is important. And we always say you know leadership
when you see it. Well, when you see Terry Gainer, you see
leadership. We may not always agree with him, but he is one of
the main reasons we have such an outstanding department, such a
professional department. And I think he will be sorely missed,
but we wish him bon voyage and Godspeed. Mr. Chairman, that
concludes my oral remarks, and I'd be happy to take questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable William H. Pickle
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify before you today. I am pleased to report on the
progress the Office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA) has made over the
past year and our plans to enhance our contributions to the Senate in
the coming year.
For fiscal year 2007, the Sergeant at Arms respectfully requests a
total budget of $224,043,000, an increase of $25,343,000 (or 12.8
percent) over the fiscal year 2006 budget. This request will allow us
to maintain the improvements and level of service we provide to the
Senate community. It will also fund 34 new staff members who will
maintain the Senate's expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center and
develop and maintain business and network security applications, among
other support services. Appendix A, accompanying this testimony,
elaborates on the specific components of our fiscal year 2007 budget
request.
Last year I testified before this Committee and reported on our
progress in accomplishing three priorities: (1) ensuring the United
States Senate is as secure and prepared for an emergency as possible;
(2) providing the Senate outstanding service and support, including the
enhanced use of technology; and (3) delivering exceptional customer
service to the Senate. These priorities continue to guide the Office of
the Sergeant at Arms.
This year I am pleased to highlight some of this office's
activities including a new strategic plan we are developing and the
challenges we have overcome since last year. Our accomplishments in the
areas of security and preparedness, information technology, and
operations are also impressive. We are preparing for next year by
planning for the major events we know will come and by ensuring that
the Office of the Sergeant at Arms is an agile organization that can
adjust to the unexpected.
An outstanding senior management team leads the efforts of the
dedicated Sergeant at Arms staff. Lynne M. Halbrooks serves as my
Deputy, and she and I are joined by Administrative Assistant Rick
Edwards, Executive Assistant Nancy Erickson, General Counsel Dan
Strodel, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Security and Emergency
Preparedness Chuck Kaylor, Assistant Sergeant at Arms for Police
Operations Albert V. Concordia, Assistant Sergeant at Arms and Chief
Information Officer J. Greg Hanson, and Assistant Sergeant at Arms for
Operations Esther L. Gordon. The many accomplishments set forth in this
testimony would not have been possible without this team's leadership
and commitment.
The Office of the Sergeant at Arms also works with other
organizations that support the Senate. I would like to take this
opportunity to mention how important their contributions have been in
helping us achieve our objectives. In particular, we work regularly
with the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the
Office of the Attending Physician, and the U.S. Capitol Police. When
appropriate, we coordinate our efforts with the U.S. House of
Representatives and the agencies of the Executive Branch. I am
impressed by the people with whom we work, and pleased with the quality
of the relationships we have built together.
This is my third year testifying before this Committee and I would
be remiss if I did not mention how proud I continue to be of the men
and women with whom I work. The employees of the Office of the Sergeant
at Arms are some of the most committed and creative in government. We
have made huge strides as an organization these past three years.
None of our efforts would be accomplished, though, without the
guidance of this Committee and the Committee on Rules and
Administration. Thank you for the support you consistently demonstrate
as we work to serve the Senate.
Strategic Plan
The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is developing a comprehensive
strategic plan and performance goals for services we provide. The plan
will establish the level of performance that the Senate expects from
us, and will help us build on our strengths and address weaknesses.
During my tenure with the Senate, I have seen how Sergeant at Arms
staff works to continuously improve the level of service it delivers to
this institution. Our strategic plan acknowledges this dedication and
skill, and provides guidance on how to focus these efforts. The plan
documents the mission, vision, values, and principles of this office,
so our employees, our customers, and Senate Leadership will know what
our objectives are and how we plan to achieve them.
We already deliver outstanding service to the Senate, and this
strategic plan will help us continue to do so. I look forward to
presenting this Committee with the strategic plan later this year. It
was developed with the input of all levels of management, and, I
believe, accurately lays a clear roadmap for the future of this
organization.
Customer Service and Support
One priority of the strategic plan is to promote within the Office
of the Sergeant at Arms a culture that is focused on excellence in
customer service. Every aspect of our work at the Senate focuses on
serving the Senators, staff members, and the public. Our efforts in the
areas of security, information technology, and operations all focus on
providing services that the Senate needs to function properly. Our
customers usually are Senate staff, but they also include anyone who
contacts the Senate and members of the media who report about the
institution. As a measure of our overall focus on customer service,
almost one-quarter of the staff of this office provides direct customer
support: Capitol Operators; Appointments Desk staff; Media Gallery
staff; customer support analysts; telecommunications representatives;
dedicated customer support personnel in our print shop, Recording
Studio, and Photography Studio; and Help Desk contractors.
Major Challenges of the Past Year
As is true every year, this past year has offered several
challenges to the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. Besides frequent
suspicious item alerts, the Senate had air space incursion alerts and
the recent Russell Senate Office Building evacuation. The Judiciary
Committee held confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts in mid-
September 2005 and for Samuel A. Alito in early January 2006. In August
2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama,
and affected the ability of several Senate state offices to serve their
constituents. These events highlight how effectively this office, in
conjunction with the Senate support organizations and Legislative
Branch agencies with which we work, has adopted procedures that enable
us to rise to these challenges.
Building Evacuations.--On May 11, 2005, the Capitol Police
evacuated the Capitol and Senate and House Office Buildings due to an
incoming aircraft. The actions of the police were exemplary, and the
Members, staff, and visitors cooperated fully during the evacuation.
When the next air space intrusion happened about one month later, we
were even more prepared and an assembly area for Senators was
activated.
On February 8, 2006, a hazardous material alarm sounded in the
Russell Building. The alarm indicated the presence of a substance that
was potentially hazardous, and people in the Russell Building were
directed by the Capitol Police to move to the Legislative Garage.
Senators and staff moved to the garage, where they sheltered in place
for about three hours.
Immediately staff from the Sergeant at Arms and other Senate
offices prepared to open a Senate Emergency Operations Center and
started implementing their emergency plans. As an example, our contract
IT Help Desk staff that was evacuated to the garage ensured the
continuity of Help Desk operations by shifting the function to
technicians located off-site. All of these activities follow the
established protocols for this kind of emergency.
The atmosphere in the Russell Building and the Legislative Garage
was marked by a distinct sense of calm and control that lasted from the
start of the incident through its completion. Fortunately, the
investigation found no hazardous material, and Senators and staff left
safely.
This event demonstrated how the Capitol Police, as well as the
Sergeant at Arms Offices of Police Operations and Security and
Emergency Preparedness have made progress over the past few years in
establishing a controlled, efficient response to incidents at the
Senate. The coordinated and measured response met the Senate's needs
for information and for security.
Hurricane Katrina.--Even before Hurricane Katrina hit on August 29,
2005, Sergeant at Arms staff was working to ensure affected state
offices would be able to recover quickly. After the hurricane, some
members of our staff assisted from Washington, D.C., while others went
to the area to help with the recovery and with the family assistance
center.
A wide range of SAA staff participated in the state offices'
recovery. Our State Office Liaison was the first point of contact for
the offices, ensuring that they knew how to contact us and others who
could help. CIO staff members also played pivotal roles. Before the
hurricane, they inventoried equipment in the threatened offices and
readied replacement equipment. They also made sure that telephone calls
to the state offices would be forwarded to another location if the
staff evacuated.
The first priority of the staff in the Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama offices was their safety and the safety of their families.
Within days, though, they got back to work, connecting constituents
with the services they needed. To do this, they needed access to space,
computers, telephones, and power.
SAA staff supplied the equipment and facilities that offices
needed. Our State Office Liaison worked with the General Services
Administration to find facilities that staff could use while their
offices were unavailable. The CIO's team improvised ways to transport
equipment to the area; they sent equipment to the closest place with
delivery service and determined the next steps from there. In one case,
they even sent satellite telephones to the area with another elected
official. Additionally, the CIO's staff monitored the status of the
circuits and networks, configured and shipped equipment to each
affected site, installed LAN drops, and provided dial-up modems and
frame relay circuits. One staff member spent a month in Mississippi
supporting the Capitol Police mobile radio system.
Across the SAA, staff members were diligent in their efforts to
help the state offices become operational. The security and emergency
preparedness team obtained satellite telephones for the affected
Senators, and sent staff to the area to work with the family assistance
center. The Telecommunications Operations team revised calling
arrangements for forwarded numbers and coordinated the delivery of
service and equipment to temporary locations. Customer Support Analysts
made sure that offices received the services they needed, and the
Employee Assistance Program provided counseling support to staff in the
area.
The work of the SAA helped Senate state offices recover quickly. We
had the ability and the resources to provide even more support, and we
were prepared to do so in advance of Hurricane Rita. These hurricanes
and their impact on state offices demonstrated how important it is that
our continuity of operations and emergency preparedness efforts reach
beyond Washington, D.C.
Support for Senate Events.--During Senate events, the staff of the
Office of the Sergeant at Arms fills crucial roles supporting the
Senate's tradition of dignity and public access while implementing
comprehensive security. Since my last testimony before this Committee,
this office has supported the Lying-in-Honor of Rosa Parks, the annual
State of the Union address, joint sessions of Congress, visits by
dignitaries, and high-profile hearings. This past year, two of the most
visible events were the hearings for John G. Roberts and Samuel A.
Alito.
In advance of the Roberts hearings, Sergeant at Arms security staff
and the Capitol Police worked with the Judiciary and Rules Committees
to implement the appropriate level of security. Technology and Media
Galleries staff enhanced the ability of the press to gather information
and file stories during these historic events. Temporary telephone
lines, systems, and office equipment were provided. We implemented both
wired and wireless infrastructure so media representatives could file
stories and pictures in almost real time. The press and the public were
accommodated, security was ensured, and the logistics surrounding the
hearings never became the focus of the story.
We have a systematic approach for determining security measures for
the many activities at the Senate and across the Capitol. The Capitol
Police, with our guidance and support, established a standard matrix
that they apply to Congressional events. This matrix helps the police
evaluate threat intelligence, logistics needs, and various criteria
related to the events; determine what level of security each event
requires; and assign the appropriate resources. Our Media Galleries
employ post-event reviews to improve the service they provide. For
major events, our technology staff reviews past events and looks ahead
to evaluate what technology is needed and whether a specific event
requires infrastructure support beyond the level customarily available.
We have made substantial progress in supporting Senate and Capitol
events over the past several years. In the face of dramatically
increased security needs, staff from the Sergeant at Arms and other
offices supporting the Senate, as well as from across the government,
coordinate their activities to provide efficient behind-the-scenes
services to facilitate these historic Congressional events.
security and preparedness: protecting the senate and planning for the
unknown
In our security and preparedness programs, we work collaboratively
with organizations across Capitol Hill to secure the Senate. We also
rely upon Senate Leadership, this Committee, and the Committee on Rules
and Administration for guidance and support.
Almost five years ago, our security programs started in earnest in
response to an immediate need to protect the Senate and enable it to
function in the midst of the catastrophic events that were occurring.
Our programs are now proven and they ensure the continuity of the
Senate's operations and the safety of its Members, staff, and visitors
both here in Washington, D.C., and in the state offices. Events of this
past year have offered opportunities to consolidate our efforts and
ensure that they are comprehensive and systematic. These efforts
integrate information technology with our security initiatives to
deliver a comprehensive approach to security that takes advantage of
all of the tools that are available to the Senate.
Our efforts to ensure that we can respond to emergencies and keep
the Senate functioning under any circumstance have grown over the past
years. To continue improvements in this area and better manage our
security and preparedness programs, we have established seven strategic
priorities to focus our efforts: Emergency Notification and
Communications; State Office Security and Preparedness; Emergency
Plans, Organizations, and Facilities; Training; Exercises; Office
Services; and Accountability.
Each of the above elements reflects a distinct set of activities
that support the Senate and that build on the Senate's layered security
strategy, which is the framework we use to address security challenges.
Emergency Notification and Communications
Our emergency notification and communications initiatives ensure
that we have effective communications systems, devices, and
capabilities in place to support the Senate during an emergency. We
have improved our notification and communications processes over the
past year. We expanded the coverage and speed of delivering text alerts
to the Senate when we integrated BlackBerry and e-mail alerts and
notifications into one process within the Capitol Police. We expanded
the telephonic alert system so it now includes more Senate staff
members and its notification process is significantly faster. With an
automated process for maintaining emergency contact information, each
office can now use a Web interface to maintain staff emergency contact
information and can designate the recipients of alert and notification
messages. Over 1,100 wireless annunciators are in place across the
Senate and the Capitol Police have completed the installation of a
public address system that can broadcast into public areas throughout
the Capitol and Senate Office Buildings. Further, if the Senate is
forced to relocate, we have the capability to video teleconference and
broadcast between an emergency relocation site and other Legislative
Branch and Executive Branch sites.
Looking forward, we are prototyping a system to use Senate Cable
Television to broadcast staff alerts and notifications. We are also
testing an expansion of our emergency BlackBerry messaging to include
additional carriers.
State Office Security and Preparedness
Extending security and emergency preparedness programs to Senate
state offices remains an important objective of the Sergeant at Arms,
and this past year's natural disasters point out the importance of this
program. Over the past several years we have expanded physical security
and continuity planning support to offices across the country. Physical
security has been enhanced in 120 state offices, with 51 of the 120
offices completed in the past year. We are working with another 161
state offices on their individual security enhancements. Our emergency
planning support emphasizes including state offices in each Member's
continuity planning.
This year we are embarking on a major project to develop and
implement a comprehensive program for state office security and
preparedness. The program will establish guidelines, training,
references, online tools, and other materials to help state offices
develop and sustain comprehensive security, emergency preparedness, and
continuity planning.
Emergency Plans, Organizations and Facilities
Our emergency plans ensure that we attend to the safety of Senate
Members and staff, and the continuity of the Senate in an emergency. I
can report that every Member office has completed an Emergency Action
Plan that is on record with our Office of Security and Emergency
Preparedness.
We provide a range of publications and support for establishing,
maintaining, and testing emergency and continuity plans. The
publications include the Senate's Planning Guide, which covers both
emergency preparedness and continuity planning. We established working
groups to identify and address communications, facilities,
transportation, and continuity. One gap we have already identified is
the need for post-event care and family assistance. We are establishing
plans to provide critical services to affected families following a
wide-spread event. In cooperation with the Senate's Employee Assistance
Program, we have conducted training with a core group of employees to
establish peer support teams. That training will expand this year.
Training
Training helps Senate staff know what to expect in an emergency and
how to use the equipment we provide. We train office staff to create
continuity plans and emergency plans, to use the accountability
systems, and to work with other staff members if a traumatic event does
occur. Our training program is coordinated through the Joint Office of
Education and Training.
Training activities over the past year included 56 escape hood
training sessions that were delivered to 1,639 staff members; 19
chemical, biological, radiological, and explosives briefings for 358
staff; 10 intern orientations reaching 805 staff; 66 emergency action
plan training sessions reaching 78 staff; eight training sessions on
emergency supply kits reaching 55 staff; nine victim rescue unit
training sessions for 35 staff; 15 office emergency coordinator basic
and advanced training sessions reaching 131 staff; 16 emergency
preparedness updates attended by 220 staff; nine mobility impaired
classes; two shelter-in-place seminars attended by 50 staff; one family
assistance center workshop attended by 35 staff; and special topic
seminars for 140 staff. We also developed three new continuity planning
classes and delivered 13 of them to 150 staff.
Exercises
We have a comprehensive exercise program to validate, evaluate, and
practice existing Senate emergency plans, identify gaps in those plans,
and establish and verify new requirements. This year we conducted nine
major exercises in partnership with the Capitol Police and other
Legislative Branch agencies, as well as a number of drills such as
office building evacuations and other smaller-scale activities. We test
our alert systems every month by sending test messages to all
designated staff members. As part of our effort to continuously improve
these processes, we implemented a system that catalogs and addresses
observations and findings related to the Senate's emergency response
programs.
Office Services
Over the past year we created and distributed informational and
training brochures to Senate offices. We distributed 3,000 Emergency
Annunciator System brochures; 6,500 Quick2000 Escape Hood brochures;
and 6,500 Victim Rescue Unit brochures. What Every Staff Member Should
Know About Emergencies at the United States Senate was distributed to
4,500 people; Senate Office Building Evacuation Procedures for Those
with Mobility Impairments had a distribution of 3,000. We distributed
3,000 Emergency Supply Kits brochures; 2,000 copies of ``I'm Safe''
Phone Home; and 3,500 copies of the Emergency Preparedness Guide. In
addition, we worked with 105 offices to create tailored emergency
information cards, over 4,000 of which have been distributed.
We also published articles and notifications on key security and
preparedness topics, and completed the rollout of much of our emergency
preparedness equipment. Wireless emergency annunciators have been
located across the Senate, and we participated in developing and
fielding automated emergency defibrillators in our office buildings. We
have deployed almost 1,200 Victim Rescue Units Senate-wide to
supplement the escape hood program, and we distributed 407 Emergency
Supply Kits to Senate offices. Over 20,000 items of equipment that have
been distributed to offices and throughout Senate buildings have been
inventoried and checked for serviceability.
As a last item, the public address system is fully operational in
all the Senate Office Buildings, garages, cafeterias, and in the Senate
Child Care Center and the Page dorm. The system will be used to give
instructions in the public areas of buildings during an emergency.
Accountability
During a threat or an incident, we must be able to establish an
accurate and timely accounting of Senate Members and staff. In
conjunction with the Capitol Police, we placed into production a system
that provides the ability to take office accountability reports using
tablet computers and wireless technology. The system maintains a
database for personnel accountability in the event of emergency. It
provides office managers and staff with the ability to construct lists
for notification, delegate responsibilities for continuity activities,
and track the status of office staff in an emergency. To date, 140
Senate Member and Committee offices have been trained to use the
system.
We deployed a planning template that helps offices establish
emergency action plans and keep them up to date. We trained 78 Office
Emergency Coordinators and Chiefs of Staff on accounting for staff
members, and also trained 220 staff members in emergency preparedness
this past year.
As we move forward we are prototyping a remote check-in capability
that will use BlackBerry devices and will enable staff to check in
without reporting to the assembly area. We are also testing a system
that will provide a secure way to account for Senators at a Briefing
Center or Alternate Chamber. The system will be able to be updated
real-time.
Mail Safety
In addition to the priorities and programs outlined above, a
critical aspect of our security stems from the anthrax and ricin
incidents in the past years.
As a result of these serious exposures, all mail and packages
coming into the Senate are tested, whether they come through the U.S.
Postal Service or from other delivery services. We have outstanding
processing procedures in place here at the Senate. The organizations
that know the most about securing mail cite the Senate mail facility as
among the best, and when other government agencies look for ways to
improve their mail security, they visit our facility.
Last year, the Senate Post Office processed and delivered over
14,200,000 items to Senate offices, including over 10,000,000 pieces of
U.S. Postal Service mail; almost 4,000,000 pieces of internal mail that
are routed within the Senate and other government agencies; almost
70,000 packages; and over 150,000 courier items. And we are good
stewards of taxpayer dollars in the process; we processed about 90
percent of the number of items that the House of Representatives
processed and we accomplished it for just over one-third of the cost
that the House incurred.
Early in fiscal year 2007 we anticipate moving into a newly
constructed Senate Mail Facility that will include state-of-the-art
mail and package inspection and testing. The new facility will provide
a safer and more secure work environment for Post Office employees. The
Senate Post Office will continue to process U.S. Postal Service mail at
the new facility using the techniques we currently use. Once we move
into the new facility, we will also take over package processing, which
is currently provided by a vendor. We expect that bringing the
processing of packages in house will increase the security of the
packages and will save the Senate over $200,000 annually.
Foreign Codels
Our security efforts are not limited to Capitol Hill, but also
include security for Senators on foreign Congressional delegations. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 authorized Capitol Police
officers to travel outside the United States in a liaison capacity to
coordinate security arrangements for Senators traveling individually or
as part of a CODEL. SAA staff, the Capitol Police, and the Department
of State have moved forward on implementing this authority. Capitol
Police officers have been trained, and, over the next year, will start
accompanying the State Department security personnel to enhance the
security for Senators when they travel overseas.
information technology: a strategy for security and customer service
We continue to place special emphasis on leveraging technology to
enhance security, emergency preparedness, service, and support for the
United States Senate. Last year we created the Senate's first
Information Technology Strategic Plan, An IT Vision for Security,
Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States Senate 2005-2007,
and this year we are half-way through executing that plan. We have
already accomplished some impressive results.
--The Senate's state-of-the-art alternate computing facility, which
helps us ensure the Senate's continuity if an event prevents us
from using our primary computing facility, has been completed
and fully tested.
--We continue to measure our customers' satisfaction, and to set
goals for each year. This year, we set the goal at 80 percent
satisfaction, and we exceeded that goal by earning a total
customer satisfaction score of 85 percent, based on a 70
percent response rate from offices.
--The Senate's first security operations center, a state-of-the art
command center to detect electronic threats and protect the
Senate from them, has been developed and implemented.
--We have implemented the Active Directory and Messaging Architecture
in 99 percent of the Senate's offices. This project, the
largest and most successful infrastructure project ever
undertaken in the Senate, provides a state-of-the-art messaging
infrastructure tailored to meet each office's security and
privacy requirements.
--We have installed 95 percent of an award-winning wireless
infrastructure that supports cellular telephones, BlackBerry
emergency communication devices, and data communications across
the Senate campus.
An IT Vision for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the
United States Senate 2005-2007 provided a structure for setting
priorities and guiding our activities. The plan outlines a strategic
technology vision, mission, and five broad information technology
strategic goals. The first annual revision of the plan, An IT Vision
for Security, Customer Service and Teamwork at the United States Senate
2006-2008, was recently produced. This updated plan will enable us to
serve the Senate better by:
--Reducing paper-based manual processes and moving business online,
--Developing a consulting practice to align our information
technology organization with the Senate's business
requirements, and
--Creating new information security and assurance initiatives to
protect the Senate's technology infrastructure and data from
new forms of security threats.
We continue to invest in information technology and are pursuing
major initiatives to support the Senate. The increased staffing levels
requested will enable us to support new business applications, IT
security, and inventory management.
Secure, Accessible, Flexible and Reliable Systems in a Modern
Information Infrastructure
We are improving the security of the information infrastructure
that protects data, respects privacy, enables continuous Senate
operations, and supports our emergency and continuity plans. Our
efforts over the past year have enabled us to support alternate sites
and the replication of information, as well as emergency and
contingency communications. We are delivering increased support for
remote access and are completing the in-building wireless
infrastructure. A significant commitment to information technology
security will increasingly protect the Senate from external threats,
and the multi-year telecommunications modernization project will
improve the reliability of the infrastructure. This work all focuses on
improving the ability of the Senate to accomplish its mission.
Alternate Sites and Information Replication
We continue to develop our ability to relocate information systems
capability at the alternate computing facility (ACF). Every critical
Senate enterprise information system has been replicated there, and
this past December we conducted the first comprehensive test of the
facility; the Senate's primary computing facilities were shut down
completely and reconstituted at the ACF. This comprehensive exercise,
which we intend to repeat twice a year, was a complete success. It also
provided our technical staff with an opportunity to practice the
procedures they would have to perform in an emergency.
This past year, with guidance from the Committee on Rules and
Administration, we provided the Senate's Leadership Offices and
Committees the capability to replicate all of their data files at the
ACF. As of February 2006, all of the Leadership Offices and seventeen
Committees had taken advantage of this capability, which provides the
Senate with an unprecedented ability to access institutional data in
the event of an emergency.
Emergency and Contingency Communications
We have a comprehensive array of communications systems and options
available so the Senate will be able to communicate in an emergency.
This year we conducted final testing on our two Senate emergency
response communications vehicles. These vehicles have network,
telephone, and satellite connectivity, and provide the ability to
relocate much of the Senate's information infrastructure virtually
anywhere. We have trained deployment teams and are updating the
vehicles' concept of operations documents.
Remote Access
Senate Continuity of Operations and reconstitution sites have been
equipped with telecommunications, data networks, and video
teleconferencing. Additionally, mobile and remote computing
technologies allow Senate staff to access and modify their information
and communicate from virtually anywhere, anytime. We provide enhanced,
secure access to e-mail, files, the Senate intranet, and a host of
applications. We also added the ability to provide inexpensive, secure
access to our network from overseas. We will continue to enhance and
expand these capabilities in order to support a potentially dispersed
workforce and provide the ability to telecommute.
In-Building Wireless Infrastructure
This past year we completed installation of an in-building wireless
infrastructure in all of the Senate Office Buildings. We are now
working in the Capitol; the basement and attic levels are complete, and
we will finish installation in the rest of the building this year. This
innovative system, which won a Government Computing News Best Practices
Award, improved signal strengths for the carrier for data-only
BlackBerry service and for the major cellular telephone carriers. The
infrastructure provides coverage in areas where it was previously poor
or non-existent and enables Senate staff to connect back to their
offices wirelessly. The system has substantially paid for itself,
saving taxpayers nearly $3 million, because the carriers are paying us
for the right to use it.
Securing our Information Infrastructure
During a recent four-month period, our most visible IT system, the
Senate's website www.senate.gov, was the target of over 17 million
discrete unsuccessful security events from almost 200,000 different
Internet addresses. A recent external security review of the site
helped us make some adjustments that will secure the site even more,
but the site itself is a prime target for attacks.
Similar to security in the physical world, security in the
information technology world requires constant vigilance and the
ability to deter attacks. The threats to our information infrastructure
are increasing in frequency and sophistication, and they come from
spyware, adware, malware, trojans, keyloggers, spybots, adbots, and
trackware, all of which continuously search for vulnerabilities in our
systems. Countering the evolving threat environment means increasing
our awareness of the situation, improving our processes, and
continually researching, testing, and deploying new security
technologies. Because we have very little advance notice of new types
of attacks, we have flexible security control structures and processes
that are continually revised and adjusted.
Protecting the Senate's information is one of the most important
responsibilities of the Sergeant at Arms. This year we have taken
tremendous strides in this area with the development and operation of
the Senate's first security operations center (SOC). A redundant SOC is
currently under construction at the alternate computing facility to
ensure the Senate's continuity of information security operations. The
mission of the SOC is to identify and understand threats, assess
vulnerabilities, identify failure points and bottlenecks, determine
potential impacts, and remedy problems before they adversely affect
Senate operations. With the SOC, we implement proactive and preemptive
actions to deter and thwart attacks on the Senate's information
infrastructure and prevent compromise of precious and sensitive data.
We augment this capability with close liaisons to other federal
agencies to ensure we have the most up-to-date information and
techniques for combating the threats. Running within the SOC, a state-
of-the-art security information management system aggregates and
reports on data from a variety of sources worldwide to help us track
potential attackers before they can harm us. The combination of the
security operations center, our defense-in-depth capability at all
levels of our network infrastructure, and our enterprise anti-virus/
anti-spyware programs have proven highly effective.
One way we determine success in IT security is by measuring and
tracking what does not happen. Because of improved processes,
cooperation across the Senate, and improved security technologies, we
have not experienced a systemic outage within our IT infrastructure due
to a security incident in two years. Yet the threat environment, as
measured by detected security incidents, remains very high. The Senate
relies on electronic mail to carry out its business functions. In the
past 90 days, our e-mail anti-virus controls detected and eradicated
over 1.5 million infected e-mail attachments destined for Senate
accounts. Other anti-virus/worm controls detected and countered 148,472
viral events from 709 computers located in 120 Senate offices between
November 20, 2005, and February 20, 2006. During this same period, a
daily average of only 25-30 individual computers showed signs of
infection. To date, 136 Senate offices use the managed anti-virus
systems, and the systems protect over 11,000 Senate computers. This is
one of the main reasons that worm outbreaks affect only about 60 Senate
computers while just two years ago, outbreaks infected several thousand
and caused notable disruption. Our anti-virus products are
comprehensive.
Information security must continue to be an area of emphasis and
growth. We will continue to invest in this technology and we plan to
increase the size of this group during fiscal year 2007.
The Senate Telecommunications Modernization Program
We are currently in the midst of a multi-year plan to modernize the
Senate's entire telecommunications infrastructure. The modernization
will provide improved reliability and redundancy to support daily
operations and continuity concerns, and will take advantage of
technological advances to provide a more flexible and robust
communications infrastructure. During this past year we completed
gathering the requirements and we now are in the final stages of
preparing a request for proposals to be released this spring. We
anticipate entering into a contract this summer to upgrade or replace
Senate telecommunications systems, including the main DMS-100 telephone
switch, G3i PBX, Conference Bridge, fax broadcast system, Group Alert
System, voice mail system, and the telecommunications management system
that we use for provisioning of telephone service and to generate the
telephone bills and directories.
Most of the Senate's voice communications infrastructure is based
on older technologies. Under the telecommunications modernization
program, we will re-engineer this infrastructure to provide redundancy
for increased reliability and availability resulting in a state-of-the-
art system built upon converged voice, data, and video communications
technologies. This approach will allow economies of scale in
construction and management, and from the user's side, the ability in
the future to have a synchronized audio and video conference with
document sharing and collaboration at their workstation. Users may also
be able to access live or archived video on their workstation, and
combine information from a database with a telephone call that is being
transferred from one person to another.
Modern Technology to Enhance Customer Service
Customer Service, Satisfaction, and Communications
We continue to pay attention to how well we meet the Senate's
technology needs. Our third annual CIO Customer Satisfaction survey
revealed that we reached an overall customer satisfaction rating of 85
percent. We have conducted follow-up surveys for the last two years,
and our customer satisfaction rating increased in each of those years.
These results are very exciting and they indicate that we are moving in
the right direction. The Customer Satisfaction survey helps the CIO
organization develop a focused customer satisfaction action plan.
This year, to provide status and critical information about Senate
systems more quickly, we instituted a comprehensive system outage
notification strategy linking e-mail notifications, Help Desk activity,
and the Senate's intranet to report system outage information in near-
real time. Another new and innovative communication approach we
implemented is a CIO Web log or blog, which uses the power of the
intranet as a communication channel to disseminate information to our
customers quickly.
We opened a new technology resource center in March that serves as
a common technology document repository and technical library. This
facility, with both hard-copy documents and an on-line library, is an
outstanding resource for sharing technical information and for
documenting and recording business practices for continuity purposes.
In addition to our annual comprehensive survey, our Help Desk
follows all of its service calls with a customer satisfaction survey.
This past year our Help Desk contractor consistently posted customer
satisfaction results at or above 96 percent.
A New Information Technology Support Contract
The final option period of our current IT support contract ends in
September 2007. Due to the contract's large size, importance with
respect to customer service, and complexity, we have begun the process
of constructing a request for proposals that incorporates the lessons
we have learned during the current contract. We expect to release the
request for proposals during the summer of 2006, with contract award in
early 2007. We plan to allow for a transition period to ensure minimal
disruption or degradation in service quality.
A Robust, Reliable, Modern Messaging Architecture
We are completing deployment of the comprehensive Active Directory
and Messaging Architecture that provides a spectrum of options for data
management that ranges from centralized to distributed. A great success
story, this project began in 2003 with the three primary goals of
providing a computing platform that would enable offices to replace
servers running the now-unsupported Windows NT 4 operating system,
improving the messaging system, and providing offices with choices to
meet their varying business needs. Technical design was led by CIO
staff with support from our vendor partners. The design options were
presented to Senate offices along with the expected impact on each
office of migrating all computers, user accounts, and e-mail. We
committed to specific time frames for completing each office migration,
and we met those timeframes for every office.
Web-Based and Customer-Focused Business Applications
The CIO completed the design for the first Senate services portal
this year. Based on requirements of Senate Leadership and the Committee
on Rules and Administration, the portal, called TranSAAct, will move
paper-based, manual processes to the Web. TranSAAct will allow Member
offices to manage and track invoices for SAA services through a Web
interface, and it will provide access to a host of Web-based
applications, such as the on-line Service Academy Nominations System.
Built on an extensible modern database framework, TranSAAct will allow
for expansion as new applications are added. With the formal design of
TranSAAct's first phase complete, we are currently engaged with the
Administrative Managers Steering Group in a user verification and
validation process that will lead to complete development and Senate-
wide rollout later this year.
We have continued delivering support to the Secretary of the Senate
through improvements and enhancements of the Financial Management
Information System (FMIS) and the Legislative Information System (LIS).
We worked with the Secretary supporting FMIS by providing four Web FMIS
releases which added functionality, improvements to the user interface,
and enhancements to disaster recovery processes.
Enhanced Communications and Infrastructure
A variety of projects will provide enhanced communications within
and between offices. Enhanced communications are being delivered on an
improved network infrastructure, and frame relay bandwidth to the state
offices has been significantly increased to support videoconferencing
and data replication. The highly successful videoconferencing program,
which enables staff members in Capitol Hill offices to conduct
videoconferences with state offices and other remote locations, has
installed nearly 400 endpoints to date. The electronic fax program is
replacing stand-alone fax machines with an integrated server-based fax
system that eliminates paper. We anticipate completion of the
enterprise tape backup system during this year; the system already
automatically backs up over one hundred servers located in our primary
computing facility to the alternate computing facility.
Promoting Modern Information Technology in the Senate
A new Technology Demonstration Center, located with our customers
in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, was opened this past year. At
the Center, customers can try all of the available information
technology equipment before making purchases. We also use the Center
for live demonstrations of new and emerging technologies. We anticipate
more of these types of activities in the Demonstration Center in the
upcoming year.
Last year we hosted two highly successful Senate Emerging
Technology Conferences and Exhibitions to expose Senate staff members
to new technologies and concepts. These conferences are designed around
technology themes of immediate interest Senate-wide.
In order to perform technology assessments, feasibility analysis,
and proof of concept studies, we recently created an advanced
technology assessment laboratory. Technologies and solutions are vetted
and tested here prior to being announced for pilot, prototype, or mass
deployment to the Senate. Results of studies performed in the
laboratory are published on the emerging technology page of the CIO's
intranet site on Webster. To ensure that the laboratory considers the
proper technologies and solutions, we have also chartered a Senate-wide
technology assessment group consisting of members of the CIO
organization and our customers. The group performs high-level
requirements analysis and helps prioritize new technologies and
solutions for investigation in the laboratory, prototype development,
pilot, and full-scale rollout.
operations and support: consistently delivering excellent service
The commitment to exceptional customer service is a hallmark of the
Sergeant at Arms organization and the cornerstone of our support
functions. The groups that make up our support team continue to provide
exceptional customer service to the Senate community.
Capitol Facilities
Capitol Facilities staff works around the clock to ensure that the
furniture and furnishings are of the highest quality, cabinetry and
framing are outstanding, and the environment within the Capitol is
clean and professional. We are in the process of implementing an
integrated work management system with a Web interface for service
requests. The system will enable customers to view all furnishings
currently in stock without making an escorted trip to the storage
facility, to request environmental services and keys, and to view
special function rooms and request set-ups. Customers will be able to
check the status of their requests through tracking numbers.
This past year we also increased our support for the Senate in our
framing and furnishings areas. We purchased a dry mounting press that
expands the framing shop's capabilities by enabling permanent mounting
of newspaper articles and photos, and we implemented a furniture
finishing protocol that replicates the original finish for historical
pieces in the Capitol.
The opening of the Capitol Visitor Center will add 66,500 square
feet of Senate space to our responsibilities: 41,000 square feet of
office space, 8,000 square feet of meeting space, and 17,500 square
feet of other space. Compared to our current obligations, we will clean
and maintain almost one-third more office space and three times more
meeting space, and will furnish over 50 percent more office and meeting
space. This will require us to hire 17 new employees before the Center
opens.
Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail
Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail, or PGDM, provides printing,
photocopying, design, and production services to the Senate. Last year,
it printed 16,850,962 sheets in color (a 12 percent increase over the
2004 volume, and 400 percent increase over 2003), and it produced
almost 10,000 floor charts. PGDM provides a variety of other services
to the Senate including the management of the Senate Support Facility,
and support for the digital scanning of incoming constituent
correspondence.
Senate Support Facility.--We are pleased to report that we have a
new, fully operational Senate Support Facility that enables us to
provide secure storage for use by the Secretary of the Senate and the
Sergeant at Arms. This facility provides a secure, climate-controlled
environment to warehouse the Senate's historical art and artifacts,
Senate equipment and supplies, and some of the Senate's emergency
transportation vehicles. The facility came on-line this past February,
and all the contents and functions of the six previously dispersed
warehouse locations have been moved and consolidated into the new
facility.
Correspondence Support.--During 2005 the guidance we provided to
Members' staffs on addressing outgoing mail in a format that takes full
advantage of postage discounts resulted in savings of almost $2
million. We also started offering digital scanning of incoming
constituent mail and outgoing response letters that works in
conjunction with the existing correspondence management systems. This
new capability enables users to import images of their office mail.
Sixteen Senate offices have chosen to use these imaging services, and
we scanned more than 240,000 documents during the first twelve months
of this program.
Employee Assistance Program
Over the past year we enhanced and expanded our Employee Assistance
Program. The program provides assessments and short-term counseling for
Senate staff and their family members twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-
days-a-week. It improves the ability of supervisors to manage troubled
employees, to enhance the work environment, and to improve employee job
performance. It also helps employees find the resources they need to
address some of the personal challenges they face every day. The
Employee Assistance Program coordinates with security staff to train
people on reacting to emergencies and to ensure that processes are in
place to deal with emergencies.
During the past year, the EAP staff worked with people in the
offices affected by Hurricane Katrina, and built even stronger
relationships with managers across the Senate. The staff also trained a
Peer Support Team that can provide immediate support to employees and
their family members if they are affected by a critical event.
Recording Studio
The Recording Studio televises the activity on the Senate Floor and
in Committee hearings, and it provides a production studio and
equipment for Senators' use. Last year, it televised all 1,222 hours of
Senate Floor proceedings, as well as 744 Committee hearings.
Committee Hearing Room Upgrade.--In 2003 we started a project to
upgrade and install multimedia equipment in Committee hearing rooms.
The project included digital signal processing, audio systems, and
broadcast-quality robotic camera systems.
To date we have installed upgrades in eight hearing rooms. Several
more rooms are scheduled for upgrades in the near future. These
enhancements include improved speech intelligibility and software-based
systems that we can configure based on individual Committee needs. The
system's backup will take over within minutes if the main electronics
fail, and because the system is networked, staff can automatically
route audio from one hearing room to other hearing rooms to accommodate
overflow crowds.
The most significant work we anticipate for the Senate Recording
Studio over the next year is its move to the Capitol Visitor Center.
This move will enable the Recording Studio to complete its upgrade to a
full High Definition facility, and to implement a number of
improvements that have been planned to coincide with the opening of the
Center.
Education and Training
The Joint Office of Education and Training provides employee
training and development opportunities for all Senate staff in
Washington, D.C., and in the states. This past year, we conducted an
assessment of our training program to ensure we are meeting the needs
of the Senate community. The assessment helped us identify skills that
are fundamental to success at the Senate, including the ability to
communicate effectively and collaborate well. We also identified key
skills for managers and supervisors, including the ability to motivate,
create a vision, organize, and delegate. In response to the needs we
identified, we will offer certificate curricula in communications and
teamwork.
The Education and Training group offered 425 classes in 2005, with
6,920 Senate staff members taking advantage of these classes. The
registration desk handled 31,960 e-mails, telephone calls, and on-line
registration requests.
Of the total number of classes, the technical training group
offered 187 classes to 1,521 staff members, and provided coaching on
various software packages and other computer-related subjects to 702
staff members. The professional development area offered 237 classes to
4,973 students, and delivered more than 50 special training and team
building sessions to Member and Committee offices. The professional
development group addresses team performance, communication, and
conflict resolution, and we encourage managers and supervisors to
request customized training for their offices. During the last quarter
of the year, staff from the professional development group offered
training through video teleconferencing to two state offices. In the
health promotion area, 1,492 staff members participated in the Annual
Health Fair held in September, and 1,240 participated in health
promotion activities throughout the year, including cancer screening,
bone density screening, and seminars on health-related topics.
Most of the classes we offer are practical only for staff based in
Washington, D.C., but we are continuing to expand our offerings to
state office staff. In 2005 we offered three sessions of the State
Training Fair to 119 state office staff, and we conducted our annual
State Directors Forum for the 37 state managers and directors. The
``Virtual Classroom,'' an Internet-based training library of over 500
courses, also enables state office staff to take advantage of the
Senate's training resources; 379 staff members from state offices and
Washington, D.C., have taken advantage of this training option.
challenges for next year
We met the challenges that we faced this year, and adapted our
responses to provide better service and support to the Senate. While we
do not know all the challenges next year will bring, we can anticipate
some of them. We expect that the Capitol Visitor Center will open, that
we will start to move forward on an enhanced process for issuing and
accounting for Congressional identification and access cards, and that
this year's election will result in some changes in the membership of
the Senate. We also know that we will face challenges related to IT
security, our technical infrastructure, and our work moving the
Senate's business to the Web. We are planning for these changes.
Capitol Visitor Center
The opening of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) will affect much of
the work of this office. The Capitol Facilities group will be affected
dramatically, since the work of that group will expand to include one-
third more space than it currently maintains. The opening will also
affect the Senate Recording Studio, which will move into the new space.
The CVC incorporates significant security features, and we are working
with other agencies to develop the processes to ensure that the Capitol
remains secure.
As part of the Capitol Visitor Center, we are installing state-of-
the-art communications facilities in the Senate expansion space. We
will provide a redundant communications path into the Capitol, and our
in-building wireless coverage for cellular devices will extend into the
core of the Center as well as into the Senate expansion space. We will
also provide any additional office automation equipment required by the
occupants of the space. Since most of the CVC's occupants are going to
relocate from elsewhere on Capitol Hill, we do not expect to spend a
significant amount of money on new equipment.
Congressional Identification and Access Cards
The Executive Branch is implementing a major initiative to use
Smart Cards as standard identification and access cards across all
departments of the federal government. We have been following the
progress it is making, and are also looking to determine how to
increase the security surrounding identification and access cards
issued at the Senate and across the Legislative Branch agencies. The
processes for issuing cards are different across the Capitol campus. We
are starting to work with representatives from each major Legislative
Branch agency to identify the requirements that satisfy each agency's
or organization's security policies so we can determine how we might
create standard processes. Just within the Senate, we issue
identification and access cards to people from the media, pages,
interns, temporary staff, full-time staff, and others. During the 108th
Congress, we issued 41,000 cards--15,000 to the press. The challenge of
tracking and recovering these cards has been daunting. By undertaking
this initiative, we expect to be able to increase the accountability
for the cards and the security of the Senate.
Transition to New Congress
This year, we will also face one challenge that we face every other
year: the transition to a new Congress. Thirty-three Senators face
election this year, and four Members have announced their retirement,
so we will have at least four new Senators next year. The transition
includes providing space for newly elected Senators, and providing the
whole range of support they need to set up their offices and start
accomplishing their work for the American people. We provide
orientation for newly elected Senators, their Chiefs of Staff, and
their Administrative Managers. We work to ensure that newly elected
Senators learn about the resources available to help them serve their
constituents and accomplish their legislative goals. We also make sure
returning Senators and staff receive up-to-date information about the
services available.
We are engaged in closing down state and Capitol Hill offices of
departing Members, equipping the transition office to house Senators-
elect from the date of election until the beginning of the next
Congress, moving the newly sworn-in Senators into their temporary
suites, and then moving offices as required during the regular office
move process.
For closing offices, we shut down all communications services,
determine which equipment can be inherited by Members' successors, and
inventory and remove all equipment in coordination with the other
activities of the office. For new and relocated offices, we establish
all communications facilities, acquire and install all office
automation and general office equipment, and ensure that everything
works as it should.
IT Security
In the IT security threat environment, the list of potential
threats to our information infrastructure is growing in number and
sophistication. Over the next year, we will meet the challenge of
managing a volatile security environment by: (1) expanding the role of
the recently established security operations center; (2) optimizing our
current configuration of security controls; (3) improving our
collaboration with other federal agencies in the areas of incident
response and situational awareness; (4) evaluating, testing, and
deploying new security control mechanisms; and (5) enhancing
communication with IT staff in Member and Committee Offices to give
them timely and usable information in order to improve the security
posture of their local IT systems.
Information Technology Infrastructure
We will complete the build out of the wireless infrastructure for
laptops; for the Parking, Guide Service, and Capitol Police radio
systems; and for the Senate Cloakroom paging systems. We will also
aggressively pursue alternative hand-held communications devices and we
will ensure that any devices we support will deliver seamless emergency
notifications. Finally, over the next year we will award the
telecommunications modernization contract and complete its first
phases. This comprehensive upgrade and replacement of our
telecommunications systems will enable the Senate to take advantage of
Voice over Internet Protocol and converged voice, video, and data
communications.
Moving Business to the Web and Enterprise Software Initiatives
We will continue our initiatives to reduce paperwork and move
business to the Web by developing the TranSAAct portal to deliver and
integrate services and systems and provide two-way Web interaction
between customers and service providers. As we move forward on
TranSAAct, we are working with Senate customers to identify and
integrate additional requirements. We are also planning for the next
major release of Microsoft's operating system, Vista. Deploying this
system and integrating it with other applications will require
tremendous effort. Building on these developments, we will work toward
integrating systems and applications through a Web-services
architecture that will reduce redundancy and eliminate ``stove-pipe''
systems.
conclusion
We take our responsibilities to the American people and to their
elected representatives seriously. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms
is like dozens of small businesses, each with its own primary mission,
each with its own measures of success, and each with its own culture.
It has a fleet of vehicles that serves Senate Leadership, delivers
goods, and provides emergency transportation. Our Photography Studio
records historic events, takes official Senate portraits, provides the
whole range of Capitol photography services, and delivers thousands of
pictures each year. The SAA's printing shop provides layout and design,
graphics development, and production of everything from newsletters to
floor charts. The Office of the Sergeant at Arms also operates a page
dormitory, a hair salon, and parking lots. It provides many other
services to support the Senate community, including framing, flag
packaging and mailing, and intranet services. Each of these businesses
requires personnel with different skills and different abilities. One
thing that they all have in common, though, is their commitment to
making the Senate run smoothly.
Over the past year, the staff of the SAA has kept the Senate safe,
secure, and operating efficiently. This Committee and the Committee on
Rules and Administration have provided active, ongoing support to help
us achieve our goals. We thank you for your support and for the
opportunity to present this testimony and respond to any questions you
may have.
Appendix A--Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
attachment i
financial plan for fiscal year 2007
office of the sergeant at arms--united states senate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2006
Year 2006 Year 2007 -----------------------
Budget Request Percent
Amount Incr/Decr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries.................................................... $56,700 $62,604 $5,904 10.4
Expenses.................................................... $65,505 $79,211 $13,706 20.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance.................... $122,205 $141,815 $19,610 16.0
===============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................ $55,282 $57,757 $2,475 4.5
Capital Investment.............................................. $17,262 $19,831 $2,569 14.9
Nondiscretionary Items.......................................... $3,951 $4,640 $689 17.4
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $198,700 $224,043 $25,343 12.8
===============================================
Staffing........................................................ 910 944 34 3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that we provide the highest levels and quality of
security, support services and equipment, we submit a fiscal year 2007
budget request of $224,043,000, an increase of $25,343,000 or 12.8
percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The salary budget request is
$62,604,000, an increase of $5,904,000 or 10.4 percent, and the expense
budget request is $161,439,000, an increase of $19,439,000 or 13.7
percent. The staffing request is 944, an increase of 34 FTEs.
We present our budget in four categories: General Operations and
Maintenance (Salaries and Expenses), Mandated Allowances and
Allotments, Capital Investment, and Nondiscretionary Items.
--The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
$62,604,000, an increase of $5,904,000 or 10.4 percent compared
to fiscal year 2006. The salary budget increase is due to the
addition of 34 FTEs, a COLA, and merit funding. The additional
staff will support the Capitol Visitor Center, augment our
security team, expand services, and meet new requirements for
the Senate community.
--The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request for
existing and new services is $79,211,000, an increase of
$13,706,000 or 20.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. Major
factors contributing to the expense budget increase are
emergency preparedness in security operations and planning,
$7,847,000; additional services and locations under the IT
support contract, $1,535,000; telephone system maintenance,
$1,097,000; consulting and equipment purchases for the Active
Directory Messaging Architecture, $1,024,000; and maintenance
costs related to Enterprise Storage, $585,000.
--The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
$57,757,000, an increase of $2,475,000 or 4.5 percent compared
to fiscal year 2006. This variance is primarily due to an
increase in Member mail system costs, $1,745,000; and state
office security enhancements of $700,000, offset by decreases
in office lease costs.
--The capital investment budget request is $19,831,000, an increase
of $2,569,000 or 14.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. The
fiscal year 2007 budget request includes funds for the
replacement and upgrade of the telephone system, $10,475,000;
data network engineering costs, $2,345,000; electronic printing
and publication network, $1,800,000; hardware purchases related
to the SAN upgrade, $1,750,000; and the Network Upgrade
project, $1,646,000.
--The nondiscretionary items budget request is $4,640,000, an
increase of $689,000 or 17.4 percent compared to fiscal year
2006. The request funds three projects that support the
Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance for the Financial
Management Information System (FMIS), $3,703,000; maintenance
and necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information
System (LIS), $840,000; and maintenance and enhancements to the
Senate Payroll System, $97,000.
attachment ii.--fiscal year 2007 budget request by department
The following is a summary of the SAA fiscal year 2007 budget
request on an organizational basis.
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2006
Year 2006 Year 2007 -----------------------
Budget Request Percent
Amount Incr/Decr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Division................................................ $25,568 $35,399 $9,831 38.5
Operations...................................................... $52,515 $53,558 $1,043 2.0
Technology Development.......................................... $41,153 $47,676 $6,523 15.9
IT Support Services............................................. $66,927 $71,901 $4,974 7.4
Staff Offices................................................... $12,537 $15,509 $2,972 23.7
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $198,700 $224,043 $25,343 12.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each department's budget is presented and discussed in detail on
the next pages.
CAPITOL DIVISION
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2006
Year 2006 Year 2007 -----------------------
Budget Request Percent
Amount Incr/Decr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries.................................................... $14,530 $15,908 $1,378 9.5
Expenses.................................................... $7,938 $15,691 $7,753 97.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance.................... $22,468 $31,599 $9,131 40.6
===============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................ $3,100 $3,800 $700 22.6
Capital Investment.............................................. .......... .......... .......... ..........
Nondiscretionary Items.......................................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $25,568 $35,399 $9,831 38.5
===============================================
Staffing........................................................ 273 278 5 1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Capitol Division consists of the Executive Office, the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, the
U.S. Capitol Police Operations Liaison, Post Office, Recording Studio and Media Galleries.
The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
$15,908,000, an increase of $1,378,000 or 9.5 percent. The salary
budget increase is due to the addition of five FTEs, a COLA and merit
increases, and other adjustments. The Office of Security and Emergency
Preparedness requires an additional COOP planning specialist, and the
Post Office will add four mail specialists to handle the opening,
examining, and sampling of commercially delivered packages to the new
Senate offsite processing facility.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$15,691,000, an increase of $7,753,000 or 97.7 percent, and will
primarily will fund security consultants and services required by the
Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness.
The mandated allowances and allotments budget request for state
office security initiatives is $3,800,000.
OPERATIONS
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2006
Year 2006 Year 2007 ------------------------
Budget Request Percent
Amount Incr/Decr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries................................................... $16,592 $18,308 $1,716 10.3
Expenses................................................... $5,971 $6,323 $352 5.9
------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance................... $22,563 $24,631 $2,068 9.2
================================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................... $27,332 $26,777 ($555) -2.0
Capital Investment............................................. $2,620 $2,150 ($470) -17.9
Nondiscretionary Items......................................... .......... .......... ........... ..........
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... $52,515 $53,558 $1,043 2.0
================================================
Staffing....................................................... 302 319 17 5.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Operations Division consists of the Central Operations Group (Director/Management, Parking Office, Printing,
Graphics and Direct Mail, Photo Studio, and Hair Care Services), Facilities, and the Office Support Services
Group (Director, Customer Support, State Office Liaison, IT Request Processing and Administrative Services).
The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
$18,308,000, an increase of $1,716,000 or 10.3 percent. The salary
budget increase is due to the addition of 17 FTEs, an expected 3.5
percent a COLA, and merit increases. Facilities expects to hire 17
staff to maintain the Senate expansion space in the Capitol Visitor
Center.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$6,323,000, an increase of $352,000 or 5.9 percent. In Printing,
Graphics and Direct Mail, increases in software and equipment
maintenance, $185,000, and purchased equipment, $120,000, are offset by
a decrease in warehouse rent, $860,000. Facilities furnishings and
materials increase $516,000.
The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
$26,777,000, a decrease of $555,000 or 2.0 percent. This decrease is
due to projected decreases in commercial and federal office expenses.
The capital investment budget request is $2,150,000, a decrease of
$470,000 or 17.9 percent. Funding is requested to purchase a new
electronic printing and publishing network, $1,800,000, and to replace
photo printing equipment and upgrade software, $250,000.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2006
Year 2006 Year 2007 -----------------------
Budget Request Percent
Amount Incr/Decr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries.................................................... $11,787 $13,127 $1,340 11.4
Expenses.................................................... $22,948 $23,398 $450 2.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance.................... $34,735 $36,525 $1,790 5.2
===============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................ .......... .......... .......... ..........
Capital Investment.............................................. $2,467 $6,511 $4,044 163.9
Nondiscretionary Items.......................................... $3,951 $4,640 $689 17.4
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $41,153 $47,676 $6,523 15.9
===============================================
Staffing........................................................ 134 140 6 4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Technology Development Services includes the Technology Development Director, Network Engineering and
Management, Enterprise IT Operations, Systems Development Services, Information Systems Security and Internet/
Intranet Services.
The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
$13,127,000, an increase of $1,340,000 or 11.4 percent. The salary
budget increase is due to the addition of six FTEs, a COLA and merit
funding for fiscal year 2007. Technology Development requires six FTEs
to support the growing demand on IT Security, to meet additional
requirements for the ACF, and to eliminate of a backlog of development
projects.
The general operations and maintenance expense budget request is
$23,398,000, an increase of $450,000 or 2.0 percent. This increase is
due to increased equipment maintenance and professional services costs
in IT Security, $422,000; the purchase of computer and mainframe
equipment and furnishings in Enterprise IT Operations, $638,000; and
hardware and software maintenance for Enterprise Storage, $585,000,
offset by a decrease in support costs for the Senate Messaging
Infrastructure, $1,000,000.
The capital investment budget request is $6,511,000, an increase of
$4,044,000 or 163.9 percent. Major projects include the SAN Upgrade,
$1,750,000; network upgrade in support the Telecom Modernization Plan,
$1,550,000; and the fiber optic migration, $900,000.
The nondiscretionary items budget request is $4,640,000, an
increase of $689,000 or 17.4 percent. The request consists of three
projects that support the Secretary of the Senate: contract maintenance
for the Financial Management Information System (FMIS), maintenance and
necessary enhancements to the Legislative Information System (LIS), and
maintenance and enhancements to the Senate Payroll System.
IT SUPPORT SERVICES
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2006
Year 2006 Year 2007 ------------------------
Budget Request Percent
Amount Incr/Decr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries................................................... $5,714 $6,260 $546 9.6
Expenses................................................... $24,663 $27,821 $3,158 12.8
------------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance................... $30,377 $34,081 $3,704 12.2
================================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments............................... $24,850 $27,180 $2,330 9.4
Capital Investment............................................. $11,700 $10,640 ($1,060) -9.1
Nondiscretionary Items......................................... .......... .......... ........... ..........
------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................... $66,927 $71,901 $4,974 7.4
================================================
Staffing....................................................... 105 107 2 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IT Support Services Department consists of the Director, Office Equipment Services, Telecom Services and
Desktop/LAN Support branches.
The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
$6,260,000, an increase of $546,000 or 9.6 percent. The salary budget
will increase due to the addition of two FTEs, a COLA, and merit
funding for fiscal year 2007. The additional FTEs will support
procurement activities and provide advanced technical expertise.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$27,821,000, an increase of $3,158,000 or 12.8 percent. The most
significant factors contributing to this increase are telephone system
maintenance costs, $1,097,000, and annual escalations in the IT Support
Contract, $1,535,000.
The mandated allowances and allotments budget request is
$27,180,000, an increase of $2,330,000 or 9.4 percent. Major factors
contributing to this budget request are voice and data communications
for Washington D.C. and state offices, $17,395,000; procurement and
maintenance of Members' constituent mail systems, $6,000,000;
procurement and maintenance of office equipment for Washington D.C. and
state offices, $2,857,000; and Appropriations Analysis and Reporting
System, $500,000.
The capital investment budget request is $10,640,000, a decrease of
$1,060,000 or 9.1 percent, and consists primarily of equipment
purchases for the replacement of the Capitol Hill telephone system,
$10,475,000.
STAFF OFFICES
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2007 vs.
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Year 2006
Year 2006 Year 2007 -----------------------
Budget Request Percent
Amount Incr/Decr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Operations & Maintenance:
Salaries.................................................... $8,077 $9,001 $924 11.4
Expenses.................................................... $3,985 $5,978 $1,993 50.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total General Operations & Maintenance.................... $12,062 $14,979 $2,917 24.2
===============================================
Mandated Allowances & Allotments................................ .......... .......... .......... ..........
Capital Investment.............................................. $475 $530 $55 11.6
Nondiscretionary Items.......................................... .......... .......... .......... 100.0
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... $12,537 $15,509 $2,972 23.7
===============================================
Staffing........................................................ 96 100 4 4.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Staff Offices Division consists of Education and Training, Financial Management, Human Resources, Employee
Assistance Program, Process Management & Innovation, and Special Projects.
The general operations and maintenance salaries budget request is
$9,001,000, an increase of $924,000 or 11.4 percent. The salary budget
increase is due to the addition of four FTEs, a COLA, and merit
funding. Process Management and Innovation requires two FTEs to oversee
the Active Directory Messaging Architecture. Human Resources and
Employee Assistance Program each requests an additional FTE to
accommodate increased staff and demand.
The general operations and maintenance expenses budget request is
$5,978,000, an increase of $1,993,000 or 50.0 percent. The bulk of this
increase is due to funding for Process Management and Innovation's
professional services and consultants in support of information
technology prototypes and innovation research and development.
The capital investment budget request is $530,000, an increase of
$55,000 or 11.6 percent, for continuing project support.
STAFFING INCREASES
Senator Allard. Well, thank you. I have a few questions
that I feel that we need to ask to fully understand what kind
of plan you are putting together. As we have mentioned, you
have requested 34 additional staff. Half of those are for the
CVC--they are new jobs. The other half is for duties and
responsibilities outside the Capitol Visitor Center, and I
would like to have an explanation of why you need those and
what functions are driving that additional staff requirement
outside the Capitol Visitor Center.
Mr. Pickle. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me give you a
broad answer for those 17 outside the Capitol and then give you
a written response that breaks down each position. I think this
will give you a much more thorough answer.
Senator Allard. That would be helpful.
MAIL SAFETY
Mr. Pickle. Okay. Essentially, the 17 positions outside the
CVC are positions that, for the most part, support or enhance
security. For instance, 4 of those 17 are positions that will
go to our new mail and package facility. As you know, we
currently process our own mail at the Senate Post Office. It
will be a state-of-the-art facility that this subcommittee has
funded. By all accounts, it's one of the best in the Nation. A
vendor currently processes packages, and we are taking over the
package screening and delivery process ourselves. We will use
four Federal employees to do it. We believe the cost savings
will be about $200,000 per year. We base this on what we are
currently paying to the vendor, and we also base it on what we
see being done on the House side. I like to brag a little bit
about our staff and what this subcommittee has supported in
that regard. We currently process about 90 percent of the mail
volume that the House does. A lot of people think it should be
much more on the House side, but it's not. Our volume is 90
percent of the House's volume. Yet, we process that mail at
almost a $7 million savings per year because we use Senate
employees. We think similar savings--not as great--will result
from using Senate employees for the packaging process. In
addition to those four staff members, there are other FTEs
sprinkled throughout the SAA to support network applications,
technology, as well as security and preparedness. One of the
positions which I do want to highlight for just a moment is in
our Employee Assistance Program. I don't think people realized
how important that program is until we began to professionalize
it here several years ago. Our Employee Assistance Program is
under a lot of demand from the Senate community. As you know,
every time we have an incident or a crisis here, we are
overwhelmed with the particular needs of the staff who work
here. This program also helps and benefits each office a great
deal. It helps managers. It helps staff directors. It teaches
staff to deal with employees that may have some problems and
issues. It is a single position, but it's a very important
position. And so what I would like to do with all the others,
if I may, is give you a much more detailed breakdown, sir.
[The information follows:]
Sergeant at Arms Position Justification--Fiscal Year 2007
Department: Office of Security & Emergency Preparedness
Branch/Section: Continuity Programs
Position Title: Continuity Of Operations Planning (COOP) Planning
Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB10, $67,675-
$101,508
Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will operationally
support the continuity program's existing relocation facilities and
those that are coming online or being planned for fiscal year 2006. The
new staff will work from classified or sensitive sites to ensure the
Senate's operational viability, and will support the State Office COOP
planning efforts that were initiated in fiscal year 2006.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. Some of these duties are being performed
now. Current staff is assigned to support primary contingency
facilities within the National Capitol Region and to support Member
Offices' COOP planning efforts, but this leaves other facilities
unattended with questionable operational status in the event of an
emergency. The COOP planning support for Members' DC and State office
locations is currently not being adequately supported and this work
will overwhelm our current planning and preparedness capabilities.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If the request is not approved, the level of
planning, preparedness, and response to ensure an effective transition
to a continuity of operations situation for Member Offices, Committees,
Senate Offices, and the Senate as a whole will not be adequate. Not
approving this position would limit our ability to support Member and
Committee Offices' continuity planning efforts as well as our ability
to ensure facility readiness for the Senate as a whole.
Department: Facilities
Branch/Section: Environmental Services
Position Title: Facilities Worker
No. of Positions Requested: 14
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB3, $33,824-
$50,733
Essential Duties of Position: The new facilities day staff will
clean corridors, perform stairway maintenance, set up water for special
events, and clean up waste. Throughout the day, the staff will ensure
that the area is clean, decontaminated, and free of all fluid, debris,
spots, stains and odor. The staff will assist in moving furniture,
delivering non-furniture items, cleaning public restrooms, setting up
for special events, and removing trash.
The new facilities night staff will clean elevators and stairwells,
conduct early morning room set-ups and break downs, and clean corridors
and restrooms. The staff will also undertake nightly office cleaning
and floor care, and will spot clean fabric wall panels.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being
performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate
Expansion Space of the CVC.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we believe that
the cost of contracting these services at the service level the Senate
expects would be prohibitive. Capitol Facilities provides a
significantly higher level of service than does the AOC's contractor.
Capitol Facilities consistently delivers the high level of service
required by the Senate, including an environment that is consistently
dust-, debris-, and smudge-free; restrooms that are stocked, cleaned
and sanitized; and floors that are free of dust, debris, soil and
stains.
Department: Facilities
Branch/Section: Environmental Services
Position Title: Lead Facilities Worker
No. of Positions Requested: 2
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB4, $37,581-
$56,368
Essential Duties of Position: New staff will dedicate 75 percent of
their time to performing the same duties as the Facilities Workers that
make up their teams. The remaining time will be dedicated to inspecting
the team's work.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being
performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate
Expansion Space of the CVC.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we believe that
the cost of contracting these services at the service level the Senate
expects would be prohibitive. Capitol Facilities provides a
significantly higher level of service than does the AOC's contractor.
Capitol Facilities consistently delivers the high level of service
required by the Senate, including an environment that is consistently
dust-, debris-, and smudge-free; restrooms that are stocked, cleaned
and sanitized; and floors that are free of dust, debris, soil and
stains.
Department: Facilities
Branch/Section: Facilities Management
Position Title: Facilities Services Supervisor
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB6, $46,395-
$69,593
Essential Duties of Position: New staff will assign work, provide
performance accountability, and provide leadership to the team leaders
and facilities workers. In addition this staff member will plan work,
ensure adherence to safety procedures and measures, and ensure that
staff members comply with Capitol Facilities policies and procedures.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are not currently being
performed. They will be required upon the opening of the Senate
Expansion Space of the CVC.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, facilities
workers and team leaders will not have the guidance necessary to meet
the cleaning and service needs of the Senate Expansion Space. Customer
service and customer service will be affected adversely.
Department: Post Office
Branch/Section: Package Delivery Services
Position Title: Mail Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 3
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB3, $33,824-
$50,733
Essential Duties of Position: New staff will screen all incoming
commercial carrier package deliveries (e.g., deliveries from UPS,
FedEx, DHL, etc.). In addition, these three specialists will process
items that are too large for the Congressional Acceptance Site.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
by a contractor. The current service levels provided by the contractor
are inadequate and result in late deliveries, incorrect routings, and
damaged, lost, and unprocessed items.
The new positions are requested to enable the Senate Post Office to
bring the processing of packages in house. We expect that this will
result in significantly better service. The cost to the Senate is
approximately $170,000 per year, but will result in savings in excess
of $200,000 annually.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the Senate will
continue to experience inadequate service levels, and it will not
realize the $200,000 savings that we anticipate. The Senate will have
to continue contractor support at approximately $470,000 per year.
Costs and savings represent total amounts for the Package Delivery
service.
Department: Post Office
Branch/Section: Package Delivery Services
Position Title: Lead Mail Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB4, $37,581-
$56,368
Essential Duties of Position: New staff will monitor employees
processing commercial carrier packages (e.g. FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) and
ensure that proper screening procedures are followed at all times.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
by a contractor. The current service levels provided by the contractor
are inadequate and result in late deliveries, incorrect routings, and
damaged, lost, and unprocessed items.
The new position is requested to enable the Senate Post Office to
bring the processing of packages in house. We expect that this will
result in significantly better service. The projected salary cost for
one Lead Mail Specialist is $36,000 in fiscal year 2007. Cost to the
Senate is approximately $50,000 per year, but will result in savings in
excess of $200,000 annually.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the Senate will
continue to experience inadequate service levels, and it will not
realize the $200,000 savings that we anticipate. The Senate will have
to continue contractor support at approximately $470,000 per year.
Costs and savings represent total amounts for the Package Delivery
service.
Department: Technology Development
Branch/Section: Systems Development--Enterprise Database Support
Position Title: Senior Information Technology Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: Pay Band 10,
$67,675-$101,508
Essential Duties of Position: New staff will administer Windows
System and SQL Server Databases.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. Duties are currently being performed by
one individual in the Enterprise Database Support group. Significant
growth in demand for services and advanced technology implementations
of this software have created a critical need for additional resources.
The same person who performs these duties also ensures continuous
systems availability and performs disaster recovery duties. Having only
one person with the expertise and daily involvement with the underlying
architecture that supports critical Senate services, such as Senate.gov
and the ADMA Blackberry backend database, puts the Senate in a
precarious position.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, services will
continue to be supported, but not as rapidly as the demand warrants. In
addition, Senate services may be severely affected by lack of support
if our single existing resource is unavailable.
Department: Technology Development
Branch/Section: Enterprise IT Operations--Enterprise Ops
Position Title: Information Technology Operations Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 3
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB6, $46,395-
$69,593
Essential Duties of Position: New staff will manage current
production systems that are running at the ACF, such as the enterprise
SILO tape backup system, systems failed over to the ACF, and various
facility related tasks. Duties also include providing first response to
problems during emergencies, backing up the primary facility support
duties for the 24 X 7 Blackberry server, and monitoring and
administering the Senate's email system and payroll applications.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are being performed by one
thinly staffed shift at the ACF five days per week. Some of the duties
are being conducted remotely and some by rotating Primary Computing
Facility staff from Postal Square. However, significant gaps exist.
With the continued evolution of the systems running from the ACF
there is a need to fully support the ACF with multiple shifts. The ACF
is now running key services, such as all enterprise backups of critical
applications. Transitioning into a multi-shift operation, similar to
the operation of the primary computing facility, is needed to support
the continued expansion of workload, and to maintain a continuously
efficient operation.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, we run the risk
of delaying resolution of system problems that arise outside of normal
business hours. We also run the risk of delaying response time in the
case of an emergency, and directly affecting business continuity.
Department: Technology Development
Branch/Section: IT Security
Position Title: Senior Information Security Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 2
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB10, $67,675-
$101,508
Essential Duties of Position: The new staff would collect and
analyze data in the Security Operations Center and resolve or eliminate
anomalies/security events; assist Member offices on network security
issues; monitor SAA enterprise systems; improve external contact in
order to stay abreast of rapidly changing computer network attack
profiles; and make full use of new enterprise-wide security
technologies deployed this year that allow us to perform activities
that were formerly performed by contractors. Staff also will provide
support and analysis associated with the new capabilities in Symantec
client software (firewall, anti-spyware/adware, etc.).
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. IT Security currently has staff that
performs most of the essential duties described, but the staff will not
be able to meet the additional demands it anticipates. Due to the
number of new security initiatives that are the result of increasing
threats, the overall workload of the staff continues to grow. Security
issues and systems are increasingly complex, requiring more time and
resources for satisfactory resolution and adequate backup.
Department: IT Support Services
Branch/Section: Office Equipment Services--Order Services
Position Title: Senior Procurement & Supplies Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB 5, $41,756-
$62,635
Essential Duties of Position: New staff will handle wireless device
issues including provisioning telecommunications/wireless services,
providing advanced troubleshooting for major vendors and systems, using
a comprehensive understanding of multiple product lines and service
offerings to provide rate and service plan analysis for customers,
conducting complete hot swaps, modifying accounts, and providing
billing support.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
by SAA staff. Senate wireless equipment needs have increased
dramatically over the past two years and the trend is continuing.
Although staffing levels have remained the same, Senate staff expects
wireless equipment to be available immediately. Current resources make
it extremely difficult to stay abreast of the ordering demands and the
programming and tracking of wireless equipment.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the SAA will not
be able to fully meet the Senate's service level expectations. We think
that the least costly approach is through hiring an additional staff
member as opposed to contracting for this support. We do not believe
that reduced service levels are acceptable to the Senate.
The pay salary range will be $41,756 to $62,635. When a contractor
was approached about the possibility of providing one person to do only
some of the duties discussed above, their cost estimate was $150,000 to
$175,000 per year.
Department: IT Support Services
Branch/Section: Desktop/LAN Support--CMS Coordination
Position Title: Principal Information Technology Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB 11 Pay Range:
$73,086-$109,628
Essential Duties of Position: This position will evaluate and guide
vendor development efforts in the areas of Web development, electronic
messaging, and electronic document management; lead projects,
especially those related to constituent e-mail processing; be a
technical resource for other CMS Coordination staff; and perform
liaison work with other SAA departments.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These tasks are currently being performed
by contract staff that has been engaged to provide these capabilities.
The new position is being requested in order to continue to have access
to this level of experience and expertise.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: If this request is not approved, the CMS
Coordination group will continue to incur the higher cost of
contracting out for this position. The CMS Coordination group supports
the existing model for correspondence management, but in order to adapt
to the changes that will result from the introduction of new electronic
communications capabilities in Senate offices and an anticipated
increase in the number of CSS vendors, we need additional staff. The
new staff must have in-depth expertise in Web form development,
electronic messaging, and electronic document management. Because CSS
vendors will soon operate within a different, more stringent contract
structure, existing staff's time will be fully committed to ensuring
contract compliance. In addition, existing staff will oversee the e-
Newsletter vendor contracts. These activities will require all of the
existing CMS Coordination resources. The pay range for the new position
is $73,086-$109,628. The position is currently contracted out at
$205,577 per year.
Department: Process Management & Innovation
Branch/Section: IT Research & Deployment--Technology Assessment
Position Title: Principal Information Technology Specialist
No. of Positions Requested: 2
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB11, $73,086-
$109,628
Essential Duties of Position: The new positions will be responsible
for all aspects of the Active Directory & Messaging Architect (ADMA)
design. All design changes, security updates, migration processes,
software updates, product upgrades, and add-in products, whether part
of the core system or peripherally integrated, must go through a
rigorous design, testing, pilot, and implementation process.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are currently being performed
by on-site contractor staff at an annual cost of approximately
$600,000. Replacing these contractors with staff will create a
significant dollar savings for the Senate and will allow for more
flexibility in work assignments. These duties will be ongoing for many
years to come and the recurring annual dollar savings will be over
$300,000.
An additional benefit is continuity of institutional knowledge. On-
site contractors are subject to periodic personnel changes. When
contractors leave, all of the Senate-specific technical and business
institutional knowledge leaves with them and there is a significant
learning curve and negative service impact associated with the
replacement of staff. This situation will be avoided by using permanent
Senate staff.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: The current cost of on-site contractors
performing these duties is approximately $600,000 per year. The cost of
these FTEs will easily be less than $300,000 resulting in at least a
$300,000 savings.
Department: Staff Offices
Branch/Section: Human Resources
Position Title: Human Resources Technician
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB5, $41,756-
$62,635
Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will be responsible for
scanning personnel records into the personnel records management
system, which will be implemented during fiscal year 2006. This staff
member also will provide support to the HR Administrators in carrying
out their labor relations responsibilities with respect to the unions
representing Capitol Facilities and Recording Studio employees.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. These duties are not being performed now.
A vendor has been chosen for the records management system and we are
working on an implementation plan. Negotiations on Collective
Bargaining Agreements are currently underway with the two unions
representing the Capitol Facilities and Recording Studio employees.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: It would be impossible for the current HR
Technician to assume this new workload. If this position is not
approved, HR Administrators will be required to assume these lower-
level responsibilities and the level of service that will be provided
to clients will be adversely affected. It will take longer to classify
positions, it will take longer to fill positions, training activities
will be provided less frequently, availability to consult with clients
will be affected, etc. In order to accomplish essential functions and
to meet critical deadlines, we might be required to pay overtime to
non-exempt staff and to provide compensatory time to other staff.
Department: Staff Offices
Branch/Section: Employee Assistance Program
Position Title: EAP Counselor
No. of Positions Requested: 1
Pay Band Pay Band & Salary Range: Salary Range: PB9, $62,260-
$93,388
Essential Duties of Position: The new staff will provide
comprehensive mental health assessment, referral, and follow-up
services in the workplace and provide counseling and short-term therapy
for staff and family members on a wide range of sensitive and complex
matters. Staff will also counsel supervisors in the recognition and
referral of employees with problems and promote good mental health
practices through articles, training programs, publications, Web page,
etc.
Are these duties being performed now? If yes, state by whom and why
a new position is requested. The present EAP (staff of two) is trying
to cover these duties.
If this request is not approved, what will be the service or cost
impact on the Senate: With a reduction in proactive outreach to
troubled employees there will be higher turnover, an impact on moral,
and, in some cases, an impact on employee productivity.
STAFFING INCREASE
Senator Allard. I want to follow up on that with some other
questions. If we are not able to provide the increases that you
asked for, would we get a decrease in services?
Mr. Pickle. I think it's a combination of the two. And the
best analogy I can use--in 1997, I believe it was, or 1998,
there was a conscious effort on the part of the Sergeant at
Arms to reduce FTEs. There was about a 50 FTE reduction that
year. By all accounts, from people who are still here and the
people we deal with, after the reduction, the services that we
provided did not meet expectations. September 11 exacerbated
the problem. It created additional needs. It created a need for
additional staff and additional technologies. We will keep
plugging away and do the very best job, and that will be our
goal, but I think there will be some diminishing of services.
Senator Allard. Well, we're looking at the chart here on
your FTE budget for the Sergeant at Arms, and I see where we
had a decrease in personnel from 2000 to 2001.
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard. And then from there, we have a regular
steep climb----
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. In personnel. And so, I would
like to get back to the 18 that you requested last year.
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard. Can you tell us the status of those new
hires?
Mr. Pickle. Out of the 18 positions you gave us last year,
12 have been filled. The other six have been announced and
posted. Two of those six had job offers made to them, but they
withdrew their acceptance and did not come onboard. So, we
still have six of those which have been posted but not filled.
Our dilemma is that some of these jobs are of such significance
and importance to us that we don't want--especially in the
technology area--to take people just to fill the slot. We are
looking for the very best. So we may penalize ourselves
somewhat by not hiring right away, but I think that's the best
course of action.
Senator Allard. Okay. We want to look at that closely.
Mr. Pickle. I understand.
Senator Allard. You have four there that haven't been
filled for various reasons, and I assume that that request you
made is in addition to the 18 that we provided for last year.
Mr. Pickle. Yes, the 34 are in addition. Yes, sir.
CUSTODIAL WORKERS FOR THE SENATE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXPANSION SPACE
Senator Allard. Now, there are 17 personnel you have
included that are supposed to be for cleaning and maintaining
the expansion space in the Capitol Visitor Center. The
Architect of the Capitol, if you have noticed his budget, has
included $1.5 million for a custodial contract for the entire
Capitol Visitor Center. So, it looks from our point of view as
though there has been a double accounting here. Doesn't it make
sense to let AOC contract out for this requirement?
Mr. Pickle. You know, I think in a perfect world, it makes
sense that we have one organization do everything. It just
makes sense. The only reason I believe we have a Capitol
facilities division that does maintenance, is that the Senate
was a little unhappy with some of the contract work done years
ago. It was a decision made by whomever was in charge at that
time that the maintenance functions be put under the Senate,
and that's why we have a Capitol facilities division that does
maintenance and cleaning on the Senate side of the Capitol. I
don't have any strong feelings on it except to say that it's
usually better when you have people who are working around the
Senate and sensitive information and documents, its better to
have people who work for you, who you have some control over.
You have a much more stable workforce. Now, whether this is an
in-house workforce under the Architect or under us, I really
don't care. I just think that we need to get the best people we
can.
Senator Allard. It might be that we have to try a
contractor. If it doesn't work out, we could always go back----
Mr. Pickle. Sure.
Senator Allard [continuing]. The other route.
Mr. Pickle. Sure.
Senator Allard. But it's something we'll look at, at least.
Mr. Pickle. Mr. Chairman, you know, I think what--the way
we envisioned that--and it's pretty simplistic. We currently
maintain the Senate wing of the Capitol. What we are going to
have in the CVC is an expansion of the Senate wing. So, we were
just going to enlarge our workforce to cover that. But again,
whatever makes economic sense and is more efficient, we are all
for.
SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Senator Allard. The budget for the security and emergency
preparedness has grown from $4 million in 2002 to $8.5 million
in fiscal year 2006. And there's another large increase we're
looking at for this year----
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. A total of $18 million. Why
are we looking at an increase of this magnitude, and can we
begin to expect the budget to begin to level out instead of
seeing these large double-digit increases?
Mr. Pickle. It is a large increase at first blush. But I
think that much of what we have in the area of security has
been funded since 2002 in part by the Emergency Response Fund
(ERF) as well as reprogramming that this subcommittee has
allowed us to do and provided for us. The ERF funds have
decreased. We now have items that need to be funded on an
annual basis, and the supplemental is no longer available.
These items have a life cycle to them. There are other items
which are services and outsourced services that we provide here
on the Hill--and these are all new services since 2001-2002 for
the most part and to over 450 State offices. So, the job has
increased enormously. I would like to say there is a
moderation, but in all honesty, I don't see how it's going to
moderate much. I think once we have a base, we will try to live
within that base, and obviously, we will live within what we
are given. But we simply meet the demands of the Senate, and
what we are----
Senator Allard. Have you looked at what funding we have
picked up in ongoing programs and emergency funding and--how
many years out we may be looking at before we can stabilize our
base, assuming that we don't have any more emergency
appropriations?
Mr. Pickle. I have not personally, but we will get an
answer for you on that.
Senator Allard. I think that would be helpful to the
committee to understand what is happening in that area.
Mr. Pickle. We'll do it.
TELEPHONE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
Senator Allard. Can you give me an update on the status of
the telephone system replacement and what's happening there?
Mr. Pickle. Last year, this subcommittee provided about
$10.5 million for the telecommunications modernization plan.
This year, we are asking for another $10.5 million. We are near
the completion of our RFP, or request for proposal, that will
go out to the different vendors in the communications industry.
We are hoping to start right away on making some of the changes
here, modernization changes. As you know, it's a lot of money.
I think you asked me the question last year, will we spend all
$10 million in the one fiscal year. My answer was probably not.
And we were absolutely right; we haven't spent it all. Do we
need to do it? We do. The current telephone system is 20 years
old. So, and in the past 20 years, technology has changed
tremendously. The industry is going toward a converged
technology where you have a convergence of digital, video, and
voice data. We need to do things such as replace switches,
replace handsets--all the handsets--we need to make sure that
our voice mail works, that all of the different wireless
devices we have, whether they are Blackberry or cell phones or
pagers, can be integrated. It's a big job, and it will take
some time.
Senator Allard. Yes, and there are some changing
technologies. Voice over Internet Protocol----
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Has the potential to save a
lot of money, but that technology has to be worked out. There
are some issues as to the domain that have to be worked out
before we get those kinds of things, but it means things are
getting more competitive. And hopefully, we can hold down
costs.
Mr. Pickle. Well, they certainly are, and we fully believe
that the bids that we get will include Voice over Internet
protocols. We know that the phone industry, the
telecommunications industry, believes that's where we are going
with telephony.
Senator Allard. Yes. Do you still expect the cost to total
close to $20 million when we're all done?
Mr. Pickle. To my understanding, approximately $20 million.
Senator Allard. Okay, and I am assuming that you are
expecting an improvement in service to the end users?
Mr. Pickle. Absolutely, yes--my CIO is going to guarantee
it.
MAIL PROCESSING FACILITY
Senator Allard. I'm glad they're here to hear that. Okay,
let's talk a little bit about the mail processing facility.
What's the status of this facility, and what are your total
cost projections there?
Mr. Pickle. The mail facility--I believe our total cost is
$14.9 million, some of which has come from the supplemental. We
hope to have the mail facility completed in the near future.
We're going to take one of our remote mail facilities, and move
it to another facility here, a little west and north of us. And
at the mail facility, we are going to be able to do the mail
processing and screening, as well as the package delivery and
screening. So, it will be one consolidated location. And we're
within budget, and we're meeting the milestones there.
VENDOR DELIVERIES
Senator Allard. Okay. Now, following up on this, the one
part of it is the process, and the other one is the delivery
here to the Capitol----
Mr. Pickle. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. And you're planning on
implementing, on a pilot basis, a new method of transferring
deliveries (other than mail) to the Capitol. Could you tell me
a little bit about the status of that pilot project?
Mr. Pickle. Yes. Currently the Capitol Police have a remote
site. They had a permanent site, but they have been forced to
move for various reasons, and they are at an interim site now.
Essentially what takes place there is many of the goods which
are destined for the Capitol are delivered there, they're
examined or screened, and then they are transported here to the
Capitol. I don't want to get into much more than that if you
don't mind. We are revalidating our requirements. We are
working closely with the Architect and the House and also
having discussions with the Library of Congress. What we are
proposing to do is create a new transfer model. And in very
simple terms, what it will do is it will allow us to receive
goods and perishables and other items at a remote site. These
items will be offloaded from vendors trucks. They will be
screened and examined, and declared safe. They will be put on
Government trucks and delivered here to the Capitol. There are
several advantages to this. First of all, we reduce
dramatically the number of trucks you see here on the campus,
and that's a big security issue. We also have items delivered
by trusted employees, Federal employees who have been vetted
and had background checks conducted on them. And third, it
should save us in damaged goods, late goods and perishables,
and lost goods.
Senator Allard. Ultimately, that could lead to us having
our own truck fleet here on the Capitol.
Mr. Pickle. It would--yes, but at a very small level. I
would compare it to something you see at other agencies such as
the State Department, the White House, or the CIA, very
similar. It's a very cost-effective process, I understand, from
looking at these programs.
STRATEGIC PLANNING
Senator Allard. Now, in your opening comments, you talked
about trying to meet our interests as far as setting down goals
and objectives and meeting those. Is this what you refer to as
your strategic plan?
Mr. Pickle. Strategic plan, yes it is.
Senator Allard. When will you have that available?
Mr. Pickle. We should have that--I'm going to look over my
shoulder--in a month. I got the right answer, yes.
Senator Allard. Okay. Well, we'll look forward to having it
in a month.
Mr. Pickle. Okay, great. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Well, we do look forward to seeing what you
have put together there.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you.
Senator Allard. I don't believe we have any more questions.
I want to thank you for your service.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you very much.
Senator Allard. I believe you are going to be here for the
next panel as well.
Mr. Pickle. Yes, sir, the next couple, I think.
Senator Allard. So, we're not going to let you off too easy
here----
Mr. Pickle. Okay.
Senator Allard [continuing]. This morning.
Mr. Pickle. Thank you, sir.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
STATEMENT OF HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL
POLICE BOARD AND CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER
HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, FAIA
CHRIS McGAFFIN, ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. So now we'll move to the next panel. We
have before us now the Capitol Police Board. I want to thank
all of you for your service, and we're expecting testimony from
Mr. Livingood and Acting Chief McGaffin. Mr. Livingood.
Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. You'll go first, and then we'll call on
Acting Chief McGaffin.
STATEMENT OF WILSON LIVINGOOD
Mr. Livingood. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the U.S.
Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. With me today
are the members of the Capitol Police Board--Bill Pickle, Alan
Hantman, and also with us today is the Acting Chief of Police,
Chris McGaffin.
Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
subcommittee for their ongoing support of the men and women of
the U.S. Capitol Police. Your commitment to their continued and
diligent efforts to develop better security operations,
response forces, and law enforcement capabilities has
significantly contributed to providing a safe and secure
environment for Members of Congress, staff, constituents, and
the general public.
The Capitol Police Board appreciates the opportunity to
present and discuss the issues and challenges behind the
Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget request. The security
challenge confronting the U.S. Capitol Police today remains
constant and complex. However, it is a challenge the department
successfully manages each day of the year.
The Capitol Police Board is acutely aware of the need for
fiscal restraint. To address the absolute requirement for
fiscal restraint, we work on a regular basis with the
administrative and financial team of the Capitol Police in the
exercise of appropriate financial management in all areas and
divisions of the department. In addition, we have been
judicious in the new initiatives we included in our request.
The goal is methodical and consistent fiscal management.
In keeping with prior conference committee directives, good
management of our core process, and maximum utilization of our
workforce, the Capitol Police has made a concerted effort to
contract out activities that would benefit from outsourcing.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget submission includes proposals for
continuing funding for these outsourced activities as well as
proposals for new outsourced activities. This will allow the
U.S. Capitol Police to more fully concentrate on its core
security mission.
It is that core mission for which I want to offer my thanks
to the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. They
coordinate the people, organizations, and resources necessary
to respond to a variety of threats we face today. It is an
extremely difficult job to manage a legislative complex
completely open to the public while at the same time ensuring
the safety of the Congress, staff, and visitors against
increased threats. It is a job the U.S. Capitol Police perform
with skill and excellence everyday.
The men and women of the Capitol Police have the Board's
greatest respect. We speak to them every day, and we listen to
them. Each one considers it an honor to protect, serve, and
welcome our citizens and people from around the world to our
Nation's Capital who come to participate in the legislative
process, to witness democracy in action, and partake in the
history of this unique place.
ACCOLADE TO DEPARTING CHIEF GAINER
Today is Chief Gainer's final day with the U.S. Capitol
Police. I know I speak for all the members of the Capitol
Police Board when I extend my deepest thanks to him for his
services to the Capitol Police department and to the Congress.
Chief Gainer is first and always a cop's cop. Through his
leadership, the capabilities of the department have been
greatly enhanced. Every person who works here or visits here is
a beneficiary of his hard work, dedication, and
professionalism. We wish him well and the very best as he
begins the next phase in his career.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wilson Livingood
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear
before you today to discuss the U.S. Capitol Police fiscal year 2007
budget request. With me today are the members of the Capitol Police
Board, William Pickle, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and Alan Hantman,
Architect of the Capitol. Christopher McGaffin, the Acting Chief of
Police is also with us.
Before I begin Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee
for their ongoing support of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol
Police. Your commitment to their continued and diligent efforts to
develop better security operations, response forces and law enforcement
capabilities, has significantly contributed to providing a safe and
secure environment for Members of Congress, staff, and the general
public.
The Capitol Police Board appreciates this opportunity to present
and discuss the issues and challenges behind the U.S. Capitol Police
fiscal year 2007 budget request. The security challenge confronting the
U.S. Capitol Police today remains constant and complex. However, it is
a challenge that the Department successfully manages each day of the
year.
The Capitol Police Board is acutely aware of the need for fiscal
restraint. To address the absolute requirement for fiscal restraint, we
work on a regular basis with the administrative and financial team of
the Capitol Police in the exercise of appropriate financial management
in all areas and divisions of the Department. In addition, we have been
judicious in the new initiatives we included in our request. The goal
is methodical and consistent fiscal management.
In keeping with prior conference Committee directives, good
management of our core process and maximum utilization of our
workforce, the U.S. Capitol Police has made a concerted effort to
contract out activities that would benefit from outsourcing. Our fiscal
year 2007 budget submission includes proposals for continuing funding
for these outsourced activities as well as proposals for new outsourced
activities. This will allow the U.S. Capitol Police to more fully
concentrate on its core security mission.
It is that core mission for which I want to offer my thanks to the
men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. They coordinate the people,
organizations, and resources necessary to respond to the variety of
threats we face today. It is an extremely difficult job to maintain a
legislative complex completely open to the public, while at the same
time ensuring the safety of the Congress, staff, and visitors against
increased dangers. It is a job performed with skill.
The men and women of the Capitol Police have my greatest respect. I
speak to them every day, and I listen to them. Each one considers it an
honor to protect, serve, and welcome our citizens and people from
around the world to our Nation's Capitol--who come to participate in
the legislative processes, to witness democracy in action, and partake
in the history of this unique place.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Capitol Police Board, I would like
to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, and for
your consideration of this budget request.
I would now like to introduce Acting Chief McGaffin who will
present the Capitol Police's fiscal year 2007 Budget in more detail.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you for your statement. And
now, we'll go to Acting Chief McGaffin.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MC GAFFIN
Acting Chief McGaffin. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell you
also that it's an honor to appear before this subcommittee
today with the Capitol Police Board and to represent the United
States Capitol Police in this hearing. We are here to present
our fiscal year budget for 2007, but I am also here to thank
you, the Senate and this subcommittee for all the support that
it's given us over the years. I'll finish 34 years of service
to the United States Capitol Police and to the Congress this
July, and I have watched this police department grow and
professionalize over these several decades significantly
because of the support of Members of Congress and the United
States Senate like yourself, sir. And if I can take this moment
to thank you personally for all that you have done for this
police department, the men and women of this police
department--those who are still here serving with me and those
who have retired over the last several decades, I'd like to do
that as well. I have submitted remarks and my testimony for the
record, and I am very much looking forward to answering
questions you may pose today.
Senator Allard. We'll make those remarks part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher McGaffin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the Appropriations Committee today to
discuss the United States Capitol Police fiscal year 2007 budget
request. The United States Capitol Police maintains the honor of
protecting the Congress, its legislative process, as well as staff and
visitors from harm. We protect and secure Congress so it can fulfill
its constitutional responsibilities in a safe and open environment. As
the foremost symbol of American representative democracy, Congressional
operations are a highly visible target for individuals and
organizations intent on causing harm to the United States and
disrupting the legislative processes of our government. It is the duty
of the men and women of the Capitol Police to do all in our power to
prevent these acts and, if such acts, should occur, to respond
appropriately to ensure the safety and well being of our stakeholders.
The employees of the Unites States Capitol Police are dedicated to
their work and thus we as a team have had significant accomplishments
in the past year, including:
--Greeted and screened over 8.7 million staff and visitors throughout
the Capitol Complex and screened over 59,500 people for three
holiday events; conducted over 17,000 canine explosive
detection sweeps; coordinated over 3,300 special events and
dignitary visits; screened over 85,000 vehicles and 72,000
individuals at the Capitol Visitors Center as work proceeded
uninterrupted; screened over 574,000 vehicles by the TIGER
Team; conducted 136 physical security assessments; and
performed 521 electronic countermeasures assessments as well as
other protective functions.
--Gained re-accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA). This repeated, independent,
outside validation of our preparation and compliance with
national standards clearly affirms our Strategic Plan, strength
of policies, training, operational readiness and overall
professionalism and indicates that the USCP has achieved a
level of excellence and has internalized positive change.
--Implemented a new financial management system in 12 months, on time
and within budget, for the first time in the history of the
Department.
--Developed a strategy and identified requirements and business
processes for the implementation of the Asset Management System
which will bring greater accountability and control over assets
within the Department, as well as, launched the first steps to
align the Department's internal controls with government-wide
standards.
In the ever-changing threat environment, the U.S. Capitol Police
accomplishes its mission through varied, and complementary functions to
provide round the clock protection to Congress. In an effort to
maintain the flexibility of Department operations and maintain
operational readiness, the USCP over the past several years, with the
support of Congress, has made significant investments in human capital
and Department infrastructure. This has been accomplished by augmenting
our intelligence capabilities and coordination among the intelligence
community, hardening our physical security and counter surveillance
capabilities, automating antiquated security and administrative support
systems, enhancing our detection and response capabilities for
explosive devices as well as chemical and biological agents, and
augmenting our incident command and emergency response and notification
systems. Each of these and their related activities has come with high
resource requirements for maintenance in order to ensure that our
systems are operational 24/7. The majority of these infrastructure
investments were funded with emergency, supplemental or reprogrammed
prior year funding and now require annual, on-going operational
maintenance and life cycle replacement.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget request of $295.1 million represents an
increase of $48.1 million or 19.5 percent over the enacted amount for
fiscal year 2006, adjusted for rescissions. This includes an increase
of $31.4 million for personnel costs and $16.7 million for non-
personnel costs. However, when the $10 million from the no-year
reprogramming of funds, approved by your Committee, was used to support
fiscal year 2006 operational requirements, is taken into consideration
the requested increase is $38.1 million or 14.8 percent.
The Congress has made the commitment through resources and policy
support to create a formidable Police Department with diverse
capabilities designed to deter or respond to any threat to the Capitol
Complex. Over the last 5 years, the Department has grown in human
capital, security infrastructure, command and control and, security and
law enforcement capability. The Department has a tremendous base of
capabilities, which requires substantial resources to maintain. The
intent of this budget request is to address targeted manpower needs and
the annual sustainment of the Department's capabilities, which have
been sourced through a variety of means. From a manpower perspective,
the Department is continually reviewing its operational concept to
determine the most effective manner in which to conduct operations. The
intent of this effort is to be as effective and efficient as possible.
New initiatives in our fiscal year 2007 budget request include
additional personnel resources for both sworn and civilian; outsourcing
background and polygraph functions in Human Resources, Information
Systems maintenance and replacement systems, operating costs for the
Office of Inspector General as well as the new Office of Professional
Responsibility; new costs for activities acquired from other agencies
such as maintenance of the radio communications systems transferred
from the Senate and certain security equipment maintenance from the
Department of Defense.
The following represents a more detailed look at the USCP fiscal
year 2007 request.
Personnel.--The fiscal year request for salaries of $246,700,000
supports the current authorized FTE levels, as well as, an additional
request of 91 new officer FTEs for critical operational requirements,
10 additional FTEs for Library of Congress (LOC) attrition and seven
new civilian support positions. With the new officers, the sworn FTE
level is 1,759. The revised civilian FTE level is 421 for a total
Department FTE count of 2,180. Included in the personnel budget is a
request for overtime. Staffing levels are driven by security needs and
augmented by overtime to meet operational requirements. The 494,700
hours requested consist of 449,300 hours for sworn and 45,400 hours for
civilians. The $28.1 million request is based on estimated overtime
posting and coverage requirements and approximate costs for sworn
manpower shortage, late sessions of Congress, Special events, security
alerts, arrests and court time and a small amount of civilian overtime
requirements.
Non-Personnel.--The fiscal year request for non-personnel items is
$48,383,000. The following highlights the majority of the non-personnel
request for the USCP.
--$16,900,000 is for Physical Security.--This includes contractual
support for physical security maintenance and support projects
such as comprehensive preventive maintenance to support the
maintenance, repair and preventive maintenance of the security
systems on the Capitol Complex on a 24/7 basis. Included are
security installation support, security network, and
specialized security equipment; the camera system, vehicle
barriers, and the annunciators; maintenance of security
equipment such as current CCTV equipment, Digital Video
Recorder, metal detectors and X-ray packages; Life Cycle
Replacement of equipment such as Duress Alarms for Members and
Committees; Card Access and Intrusion Alarms.
--$11,232,000 is for Information and Communication.--This includes
maintenance, repair, licensing and support of new and existing
systems such as engineering professional services and radio
systems contract support, annual contracts supporting
Blackberry and Nextel devices and fit out of the radio van.
Information Systems modernization Phase III includes systems
such as the Asset Management System, Case Management system and
Web portal system; Lifecycle replacement for such items as
Personal Computers due to be replaced, radio support, Nextels,
Verizon phones, purchase and refreshment of Police Radios.
--$4,318,000 is for Protective Services.--This will provide
appropriate travel related funding for the Dignitary Protection
Division (DPD) to ensure the safety and security of the
Congressional Leadership and other Congressional Protectees.
The funding for the last 3 years has required reprogramming
each year to meet costs. Travel increases are related to fuel
costs, rental cars and hotel costs. External training is
requested for protective operations.
--$2,916,000 is for Human Resource Management.--This provides for
contractual services for Human Resources Management such as the
National Finance Center for payroll administration; AVUE, which
is the HR Management system; Time and Attendance System
Programming and employee training (Workbrain system) and the
outsourcing of 6 sworn staff for the Background check and
polygraph function. This will free up the 6 sworn officers to
be put back in to the field and will offset the number of new
positions required for the CVC. This request also includes
$400,000 for tuition reimbursement for USCP employees.
--$2,731,000 is for Financial Management and Accountability.--This
includes contractual support for the Office of Financial
Management including Audit and Review Services, Outsourcing
contract support and a cross servicing agreement for the
financial management system. This line item also includes
funding for agency wide projects such as copier maintenance,
vehicle fuel and tort claims.
--$2,664,000 is for Logistic Support.--This includes funding for
refreshment of uniforms, purchase of new uniforms for new
recruits and other officers such as K-9 and CERT officers.
Funding is also requested for maintenance and repair of the
Police vehicle fleet.
--$786,000 Hazardous Incident Response.--This represents replacement
of a bomb suit for hazardous devices. Also includes maintenance
for such items as radiological and biological detectors and
hazardous material equipment, life cycle replacement and
purchase of required equipment and supplies for the hazardous
material response team to comply with OSHA and other safety
standards.
In keeping with prior Conference Committee directives, good
management of our core processes and maximum utilization of our
workforce, the USCP has made concerted efforts to contract out
activities that are conducive to outsourcing. Our fiscal year 2007
budget submission includes our proposals for continuing funding for
these outsourced activities as well as proposals for new outsourced
activities, allowing the USCP to concentrate on its expertise. The 2007
request includes outsourcing services in the amount of $20.4 million,
which includes information technology, physical security systems and
maintenance, administration, background and polygraph services,
veterinarian services, security control operators, financial asset
management system, accounts payable, and installation of equipment.
The U.S. Capitol is still faced with numerous threats, including a
vehicle-borne explosive attack, terrorist-controlled aircraft attack,
armed attacks on the Capitol Complex, suicide bombers or positioned
explosive attacks, chemical, biological and/or radiological attacks and
attacks on Members and staff as well as ordinary crime. To accomplish
this mission, the Department will continue to work diligently to
enhance its intelligence capabilities and provide a professional 21st
Century workforce capable of performing a myriad of security and law
enforcement duties, supported by state of the art technology to prevent
and detect potential threats and effectively respond to and control
incidents. With the help of Congress and the Capitol Police Board, the
Department will continue developing professional administrative
capabilities based on sound business and best practices, while raising
the caliber and capability of its sworn and civilian personnel.
The United States Capitol Police must maintain the ability to be
prepared for any situation and the attainment of that goal depends, in
part, on having the right people, the right strength and the right
numbers, organized into an effective and flexible blend of capabilities
and skills. The Department continues to prepare and train officers by
holding Department-wide intelligence briefings when significant or
critical information is gathered; disseminating intelligence and
tactical information in daily roll-calls and conducting field and
table-top exercises in efforts to enable our officers to have the tools
necessary to do their jobs. Additionally, the Department's officials
routinely participate in a wide-range of tabletop exercises with top
experts in federal, state and local law enforcement.
As Acting Chief of the Capitol Police, I take great pride in the
many years of service this Department has provided to the Congress.
Building on that legacy, we at the USCP look forward to continuing to
safeguard the Congress, staff, and visitors to the Capitol Complex
during these challenging times. In addition, we look forward to working
with the Congress and particularly this Committee.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and am ready
to address any questions you may have.
ACCOLADE FOR U.S. CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT
Senator Allard. Did you give your full statement, Mr.
Livingood?
Mr. Livingood. It's been submitted for the record, sir.
Senator Allard. I would just like to say like so many
Members, I visit the Capitol at all hours. It might be in the
middle of the night or 6:30 in the morning. But I have always
felt like security was working well and always felt like I was
treated in a courteous and helpful manner, and we appreciate
that. I think on behalf of all of the Members, I would just
like to thank you.
Acting Chief McGaffin Thank you, sir.
EXPLANATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASES
Senator Allard. Now, the Capitol Police Board is requesting
close to an increase of 20 percent over the current year. If
you look at the reprogramming of funds last year, it's closer
to 15 percent. Could you explain why the board believes we need
to have an increase of this magnitude?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Thank you, sir. As you noted,
approximately $10 million of our request that's being expended
in this fiscal year in fact came from no year or supplemental
funding. So, it does reduce, in one measurement, the overall
request, as you pointed out, and I thank you for recognizing
that. I would say that there are two major drivers for the
increase. Under the FTE increase, as you noted earlier, we're
asking for 101 more FTEs in our sworn ranks, and we're asking
for 7 additional FTEs in our civilian administrative ranks.
These FTE increases on the sworn side are principally required
in terms of supporting the Capitol Visitor Center, and that's
what we see as a mission expansion for us in this coming fiscal
year. The subcommittee has provided funding in fiscal year 2006
for 45 positions to help us provide the adequate security for
the CVC. We are also moving a number of security posts from
Capitol division assignments into the CVC, which are no longer
going to be necessary once the CVC is open. But we still have a
shortfall of approximately 63 FTEs, which we're asking for in
the fiscal year 2007 budget. In addition to that, we are asking
for an increase of approximately 11 FTEs for our dignitary
protection division, and these are the men and women who are
assigned to protect the congressional leaders in the Senate and
in the House. In the past year, they have been operating at a
staffing level of about 82 percent, and that division alone has
the highest per capita cost for overtime than any element
within the police department. We have not dropped protection
for these leaders at all, but it is being incurred at the
expense of additional duty. So, we are asking for an increase
there.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ATTRITION AND OTHER NEW POSITION REQUESTS
The Library of Congress attrition numbers that we have
asked for over the last several years include an FTE increase
of 10. And then finally, we are asking for an increase of
approximately 17 FTEs to augment our counterterrorism
initiatives as they repel and thwart any operational or
planning initiatives which may be brought to this complex via
the number one threat that we see vehicle-born improvised
explosive devices. That group, which is referred to as a Tiger
Team, is being managed exclusively out of overtime funds as
well. Moving from the salary account, or staying within the
salary account, sir, additional duty, the overtime requests
have increased as well. And as I pointed out, the number of
personnel that we have to apply to all the duties and
responsibilities we have in this fiscal year we have to augment
with additional duty. And as we schedule ahead, as we look
ahead to requirements that are expanding, as well as holding
steady into 2007, we see a need to increase our request for
additional duty.
NONPERSONNEL INCREASES
Systems maintenance and communication systems are the other
area that are driving this budget up. And such areas that
insist on this maintenance, such as our financial systems, our
information technology systems, and our security systems are
requiring some additional funding as well. Now having said
that, we are working diligently with your staff to reduce this
request for markup, and we have applied, with the help of the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others, some
strategies that we think will successfully reduce this request
for fiscal year 2007. And I hope to come back to you, and
expect to come back to you through your staff very soon with a
lower request in several of the areas that we just identified.
TIGER TEAM AND DIGNITARY PROTECTION DIVISION NEW POSITIONS DISCUSSED
Senator Allard. I'd like to now follow up on the 28 new
officers you have requested. As I understand it 11 of those FTE
are for the dignitary protection detail, and the remaining
would be the 17--for your Tiger Team. What is driving the
increases in those two areas?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir. The dignitary protection
division where we have asked for an increase of 11 is being
driven principally by the amount of overtime that we have had
to work to maintain security for 10 leaders of Congress.
Senator Allard. Very good.
Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir, and the 17 that are
assigned to the Tiger Team are the counterterrorist group that
I have described that are positioned around the Capitol grounds
at intersections who conduct random checks of vehicles
traversing the grounds. This group is one that we are taking
another look at because we have been funding that out of
additional duty. And with cooperation with your staff, we are
going to see if there is a cost benefit that can be achieved by
reducing that 17 on the FTE side of the ledger and bringing
some efficiencies where we can find additional duty to offset
that as we have been doing up to this point.
REDUCTION IN POLICE OVERTIME EXPLAINED
Senator Allard. Thank you. How have you managed your
reduction in overtime? I remember in last year's budget we had
set some caps on how much overtime you could pay. Are you
confident we are not incurring any additional risks as a result
of the reduction in overtime funds?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Well, first, we are very grateful
for the funding for additional duty and overtime the
subcommittee has supported us with, and I can tell you that we
are going to stay within our budget this fiscal year. One of
the methods that we are employing right now to ensure that we
stay within budget now and ideally confined a manner in which
to lower our request for additional duty and overtime in the
fiscal year 2007 budget request is the result of some great
collaboration that we have entered into with the Government
Accountability Office. Staff and support from that agency has
assisted us in developing what we call a threat matrix. And
just to quickly describe that, what we have been able to do
with the help of the GAO is to apply criticality factors to
every single post that we have, every single job that we
perform up here. And those criticality factors are allowing us
to identify where our critical needs are versus where our
ideally positioned needs are.
So, in other words, in assessing everything that we are
doing, we're understanding what are the most important posts
that have to be manned each day. Now, one of the byproducts of
this review was that we have discovered some efficiencies that
we have been able to achieve already where we found there were
some posts that were being performed by two elements within the
police department, which we were able to fold into one. And
that kind of analysis is allowing us to stay within our budget
this year, and it's the same analysis that's going to allow us
to--I'm optimistic--successfully reduce our additional duty
requests for next year.
Senator Allard. Well, I want to compliment you on working
with the GAO and helping to set some priorities there. I think
that helps the Members to understand where they want to be as
far as risk and what level of security they want to have.
Acting Chief McGaffin. Thank you, sir.
DISCUSSION ON COMP TIME BALANCE REDUCTION
Senator Allard. On the comp time, what is the status of
reducing comp time balances within the department such that no
more than 240 hours will be carried over from one year to the
next?
Acting Chief McGaffin. We have conducted an audit of all
exempt employees of the police department to determine how many
have comp time balances in excess of 240 hours. Approximately
62 of the 200 plus exempt employees of the department find
themselves in that category. What we have done is to develop
and administer an internal control system in which without
interrupting any of the management oversight, without
interrupting any of the supervisory responsibilities that these
62 members would bring to the day-to-day job. All comp time
balances will be reduced to the 240 mark by the end of this
year, and there is absolutely no expectation on the part of any
of us that we would carry more than 240 hours into the next
leave calendar year.
Senator Allard. Now, the carryover from one year to the
next, is that manageable?
Acting Chief McGaffin. I guarantee we are going to manage
this down, yes, sir. And we have found ourselves in this
situation for several different reasons, but the most pressing
one is all the work that all of us have been performing over
these last several years. And as we find opportunities to take
time off and to enjoy some of the comp time, we are doing it.
But the fact of the matter is that many managers, including
myself, will never be able to use all the comp time that we
have on the books, and that just goes with the job.
Senator Allard. Goes with being a manager.
Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I'm not a clock watcher either, and I
understand. But we are going to get this issue resolved by what
date do you anticipate, or what time line?
Acting Chief McGaffin. It will be resolved within this
leave calendar year. And if I am not mistaken, I believe by
January 6, 2007, at the end of the last pay period in this
leave calendar year, everyone's balance will be where it needs
to be.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MERGE PROGRESS
Senator Allard. Very good. Now, what is the status in
detailing officers from the Capitol Police to the Library of
Congress, and has progress been made in the last year in
improving the police operation at the library?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Mr. Chairman, we currently have 31
Capitol Police officers assigned to the Library of Congress.
That includes an inspector and most recently, two sergeants who
have been assigned as part of that complement. As you know,
within our budget request, we request authorization to fill
vacancies that occur due to attrition in the Library of
Congress, and that's what we are doing again this year. The
role that our officers are providing to the Library is to
augment their security, and I must say they have. The
inspector, Tom Reynolds, has just done a magnificent job making
the Library of Congress feel part of the Capitol Police and the
Capitol Police feeling part of the Library of Congress. In the
area of operations, we have run evacuation drills, we have run
training programs for their managers, for their supervisors,
such things as motorcycle training and patrol techniques. We
have included the Library of Congress police department in our
own department's award ceremony, and we are all working
together. There are some bumps in the road, not to avoid those
or not to think about those, but we are doing well.
SCREENING VEHICLES AT LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Senator Allard. Well, one area that has been called to my
attention is the screening of the vehicles going to the Library
of Congress, and the information I'm getting is that this is
not sufficiently thorough. Have you looked at this, and do you
believe this is something that we ought to address?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir, we have looked at this,
and we are right now examining the feasibility of bringing the
Library of Congress delivery system--delivery requirements
within our own offsite delivery center. Right now, we process
somewhere in the area of about--on average, 80 trucks a day
that come through the interim offsite delivery center, and the
Library has requested to utilize that center for deliveries to
its building complex as well. And we are making some
recommendations to the Capitol Police Board, which will be
reviewed and considered by that group to work toward ensuring
that the security of the Library of Congress is just as great
as this office building here.
Senator Allard. Do you think you can get something to us in
about 30 days or so on the cost estimate of the revised plan?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. We'd need that for our budget purposes. And
so, if we can have the Board act and get back to us within that
time period, we would appreciate it.
Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.
CAPITOL POLICE GENERAL COUNSEL DISCUSSION
Senator Allard. In regard to the Capitol Police general
counsel: Why do we need additional counsel, and why is the
current general counsel on the payroll of the House of
Representatives?
Acting Chief McGaffin. There has been a remarkable increase
in the work that counsel has had to perform. In the several
years that I have been in an executive position, I have seen
this work increase dramatically. I personally bring a lot of
work to that office. We have assigned counsel to our Office of
Professional Responsibility to assist us in the areas of
discipline. We have assigned work to our Office of Employment
Counsel regarding performance and performance evaluations of
our own personnel. The workload simply has increased. Now, we
are undertaking a review with the Capitol Police Board to
determine where those positions need to be.
Senator Allard. Now, is there any other position in the
Capitol Police force that's not on the Capitol Police force,
but on that of either the House or Senate?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Not that I'm aware of, sir.
Senator Allard. The answer's no?
Acting Chief McGaffin. I don't believe there are any other
positions, sir.
Senator Allard. Okay. I see that Mr. Pickle is indicating
that he doesn't believe there is any. So, this is an exception
to what we ordinarily have before us.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER RESPONSIBILITIES
In 2000, legislation was enacted that created the Chief
Administrative Officer for the Capitol Police in order to
address long-standing administrative problems in the
department. Then in 2002, the CAO issued a plan, as required by
law, to carry out the Chief Administrative Officer's
responsibilities. Now, while improvements have been made, the
U.S. Capitol Police still does not have auditable financial
statements or a comprehensive foundation for financial
management according to the Government Accountability Office.
And now, Mr. Stamilio, what are the most significant areas
still to be addressed from the CAO Act, and the biggest
challenges you face in meeting those requirements?
[The information follows:]
Since becoming an independent agency in fiscal year 2003,
the Capitol Police has made significant strides in creating a
solid foundation for financial management and becoming a fully
functioning, best practices financial management operation We
have, this fiscal year, implemented, on time and within budget,
a full scale, predominately paperless, JFMIP compliant
financial management system, report all financial transactions
to the U.S. Treasury, have identified core competencies for all
financial management staff and tied those competencies to
individual development plans for all financial management
staff. We have also finalized a total of 95 financial
management policies and procedures as well as instituted a risk
management plan and assessment tool for evaluating internal
controls within financial management operations. Additionally,
we have received reports on our internal controls from our
external auditors, a practice that is highly encouraged but not
required.
We also manage travel, purchase and fleet card programs and
maintain robust monitoring programs for the travel and purchase
card programs to ensure proper use of the cards. In addition,
we have implemented a paperless, on-line, just in time process
for the ordering of office supplies to reduce costs by
eliminating central storage and reducing inventory. We pay
travel claims in an average of 4 days and have established and
maintain standard contract formats, terms, conditions and
clauses and as a practice. We prepare a semi annual statement
of disbursements that reports all payment activity for all
funds and recently redesigned our budget execution process to,
for the first time, manage the budget in the manner in which it
was formulated and ties the budget to the strategic planning
process. This provides greater transparency to the operations
of the Department as well as provides managers with more robust
tools with which to manage operations and make decisions.
We anticipate that with the implementation of the asset
management system, the completion of a full set of audited
financial statements, and the ongoing review of internal
controls through implementation of our risk management plan,
and the ongoing review and generation of policies and
procedures, we will be nearly complete with our transition.
While we currently do not produce a full set of federal
financial statements, we do produce one of the statements, a
Statement of Budgetary Resources, which is audited by an
external audit firm and has received an unqualified opinion for
all audits completed. We thank the Committee for your support
of our initiatives to this point and look forward to reporting
that we have reached our goal in the new future.
Acting Chief McGaffin. I'll ask Tony to come forward. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to point out, because he may be a little
too modest to do this himself, some of the success that his
office has achieved--you're absolutely right. In 2002, the
Chief Administrative Officer plan called for a follow-up in 21
areas of responsibility. This included 71 discreet actions that
he was responsible for following up on. And of that, only seven
remain open as we sit here today. And of those seven, we expect
only three to remain open by the end of this fiscal year. I
would suspect that Mr. Stamilio would talk to your subcommittee
and your staff about some of the success he has had in
implementing a financial management system or a new budget
system, IT systems. And there's a performance system that we
have in our police department now for executives and employees
that is long overdue, and he and his staff have put together
one of the most dynamic communications and evaluations systems
that any law enforcement agency that I'm familiar with has. And
these are all part of the plan that originated in 2002, and
that has been rolled up into his own business plan and part of
our strategic plan. So, there's great news in the work that he
has brought to this endeavor.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ACTION PLAN
Senator Allard. Well, I am particularly interested in the
action plan.
Acting Chief McGaffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Tony.
Mr. Stamilio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to respond. As Chief McGaffin pointed out, as did
you, the legislation that provided for a Chief Administrative
Officer and a plan--resulted actually in a plan that was built
in 2001 and again revised in 2002. As we reviewed the specific
actions required of that plan that was obviously initiated by
the department, there are only seven major actions that are
left, three of which I don't expect to be accomplished by the
end of this fiscal year. Those three include the documenting of
our policies and procedures. Now, this is a significant
undertaking. If I could just put that piece in context for you
because I think it's a significant challenge.
First off, it's not that the department has not documented
its policies and procedures because it certainly has and
continues to do so. We have more work to do in this area. When
we have built procedures to put in place the types of controls
that we need to have and now we're in the business of
documenting those and incorporating those into our general
orders process. I anticipate that that will probably take
somewhere between 3 and 6 months beyond the end of the fiscal
year to a point that I could come back to you and say I feel
like our body of documentation of our policies and procedures
is sufficient and supports an operation. So, that's one area
that remains and quite frankly, will continue as policy and
procedure must continually be updated. But it's one that
clearly has our focus. And with the support of GAO, we have got
some increased focus in terms of the level of specificity
required there. The second two areas that will not be
accomplished by the end of this fiscal year include
implementing the cost accounting system and complete financial
statements.
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
In both of those two initiatives, we made a conscious
decision to delay work on those and instead pull forward, with
obviously significant financial support from the Congress, the
implementation of our financial management system. That's a
very significant achievement because included in that system
are many of the internal controls and the processes that we
have been doing manually that are now part of the automated
system. I'm proud to say that our Office of Financial
Management and Office of Information Systems has put that in
place inside a year under budget and that is our system of
record and has been through the entire fiscal year. A companion
to that system is something that is a work in progress, and
that is the asset management system. Again, with the support of
Congress, the finances are available. It was impossible from a
management perspective to field both of those systems at the
same time.
And so, we offset the implementation of one with the other.
The requirements of the asset management system are built. The
policy and procedures have been drafted, and we are in the
implementation stage of the asset management system at this
point in time and anticipate that that will be operating
probably by the end of this fiscal year at the latest, or at
least phase one of that will be operating. With a solid
financial management system and a solid asset management
system, we will be in a much better posture to be prepared to
do clean financial statements. And in fact, that is our goal.
And so, the decision to delay was to posture us to be in a
position to be able to do that.
SUMMARY OF REMAINING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER INITIATIVES
Senator Allard. So, let me just summarize this. We have 11
left.
Mr. Stamilio. No sir, we have seven left.
Senator Allard. Oh, seven left. And then, you're going to
have four of those seven completed, you think, by the end of
this fiscal year.
Mr. Stamilio. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Senator Allard. And then, the three remaining that you will
have after this year will be documentation, then the cost
accounting system, and then the asset management system.
Mr. Stamilio. Right.
Senator Allard. Now, those are really important aspects,
probably the meat of the whole thing in those last three.
Mr. Stamilio. The third being the financial statements,
yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Stamilio. Now----
Senator Allard. The asset management is in the cost
accounting area?
Mr. Stamilio. No, the asset management provides us the
capability to value our fixed assets and----
Senator Allard. Sure, that's in inventory.
Mr. Stamilio [continuing]. Prepare a balance sheet that
would withstand the scrutiny of an external audit. And so, that
is a component that will put us in a position where we can have
clean financial statements.
Senator Allard. And when do you think you'll have all this
in place for there not to be a problem with an external audit?
Mr. Stamilio. Our target is to have clean financial
statements at the end of fiscal year 2008.
Senator Allard. Okay. So 2 years down the road is what
you're looking at?
Mr. Stamilio. Yes, sir. At this point.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Stamilio. And depending on our ability to fully
implement and have confidence in the asset management system,
we may be able to push that up, but I'm very confident that by
the end of fiscal year 2008, we will have clean financial
statements.
Senator Allard. Well, obviously there needs to be
functional systems and they need to be accurate. They are very
important systems, particularly from an oversight standpoint.
Mr. Stamilio. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
USCP advances in the Administrative Arena start in the area
of Human Capital.
First, the Performance Evaluation and Communication System
(PECS) was implemented and training for it was completed. This
is a competency-based personnel performance management system
and is linked to Departmental goals and objectives in the
Strategic Plan.
Second, USCP's personnel information system modernization
is well underway. Accomplishments include: AVUE Implementation:
Phase I accomplished for the Data Accuracy/Integrity Project
(Workbrain Organizational. alignment and Reporting), enhanced
WorkBrain Reporting for Overtime; employee Self-Service
implemented and a Customer Resource Center established.
A third advance toward this Human Capital goal is in the
area of training. We shifted focus of Entry-Level and In-
Service Training from traditional enforcement to Security
Operations and Intelligence Training. Specifically, scenario-
based training has been implemented, a security screening
certification program has been approved, and recruit officer
curriculum review was completed.
We have also gained ground on our Strategic Objective
entitled ``Leveraging technology to improve productivity.'' The
point of this objective is to provide responsive, high quality,
cost-effective information technology services and solutions in
a timely manner. Strategic Initiatives that support this
objective include developing and maintaining an Enterprise
Architecture to align business requirements and information
technology investments across USCP, and modernize business
systems, including transitioning to a target architecture
comprised of interoperable systems and applications, provide
browser-enabled access to all USCP applications, utilize
Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) technology to implement
renovated applications and provide a phased approach to
implementing target architecture.
With regard to leveraging technology, the first step is to
maintain and keep operational the installed Base of Information
Technology (IT) Systems. This initiative encompasses the
operation, maintenance and continued development of major
systems critical to USCP operations: Computer Aided Dispatch,
Time and Attendance, Records/Document Management Network
Infrastructure, MAXIMO, Livescan Fingerprinting, Senate PERS,
Radio Support Infrastructure, Microsoft Outlook (email), MS
Windows 2000 Suite.
We can report that all projects are on track and milestones
are being achieved to support this initiative.
A second step (in leveraging technology) is to complete the
modernization of Administrative and Law Enforcement Programs.''
On this front, progress has been particularly strong for
supporting Computer Aided Dispatch, Reports Processing and the
Momentum Financial Management System (FMS).
USCP has made progress to gain accreditation and
certification of major systems in compliance with the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA). USCP annually
assesses risk, certifies and accredits major systems, once
every three years, using a third party vendor, and is audited
annually as part of the financial audit--as well as 6 month
reviews by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). USCP is
in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management
Act (FISMA). OIS identifies personnel with significant
information system security roles and responsibilities,
documents those roles and responsibilities, and provides
appropriate information system security training before
authorizing access to the system. During fiscal year 2005,
various tools and techniques were used to monitor events on the
information systems to detect attacks, and provide
identification of unauthorized use of the system. Using a third
party, USCP used appropriate vulnerability scanning tools and
techniques to scan for vulnerabilities.
A great deal of progress was made regarding Enterprise
Architecture (EA). 95 percent of our systems are compliant with
EA and this supports our strategic objective: ``To provide
responsive, high quality, cost-effective information technology
services and solutions in a timely manner.'' We completed (and
submitted for GAO review) our EA plan (version 3). In addition,
we drafted an EA version 4 with case management and asset
management systems included. Finally, the Department aligned
the IT Strategic Plan to the USCP Strategic Plan using the
ProVision modeling tool.
The Department developed and maintained an electronic
document and records management system that is secure and
quickly accessible (Hummingbird document management system). In
addition, we developed and implemented a training plan for 625
personnel on the ways of Hummingbird, record management policy,
and records disposition.
There have been several accomplishments as regards our
strategic objective for Financial Management--to provide
timely, reliable, and responsible financial management
services, and ensure accountability for assets and resources.
First, we have been able to formulate, submit and execute a
USCP Budget, consistent with our strategic plan and
congressional direction. As far as improving our budget
execution, progress included: meeting with Bureaus/Offices
throughout fiscal year 2005 to review spending plans;
developing list of fiscal year 2005 unfunded items and
identified savings sufficient to fund many of these items; and
developing and submitting fiscal year 2006 spending plan to
committees.
USCP has responsibly managed the Department-wide
acquisition processes and procedures in accordance with
applicable principles of law and authorities. Specifically we
have completed implementation of the purchase card program and
initiated a fleet card pilot program.
We have performed all planning and preparatory work
necessary for the new financial management system, Momentum, to
become operational on October 5, 2005. The Department also
trained 95 percent of Momentum users and hired two new systems
accountants.
As regards Asset Management--accomplishments included the
following: completed requirements definition of asset
management project; completed on-site assessment of ``as-is''
asset management flows; identified definitive set of 629 user
requirements; analyzing and evaluating asset management best
practices to steer development of USCP's policies and
procedures; analyzing business process reengineering for USCP's
Property Management Program; analyzing ``to-be'' asset
management flows; analyzing feasibility of a phased-in
implementation approach; and updated Enterprise Architecture to
reflect Asset Management.
We have made significant progress on implementing programs
to assure compliance with environmental, safety/OSHA
regulations. For example, we have established Mishap Reporting
Procedures and new data collection software for tracking and
trending on-the-job injuries. Also we have developed a program
to identify, document and correct workplace hazards. Of the
more than 500 identified safety deficiencies by the Office of
Compliance during the 108th Congress in USCP occupied spaces,
100 percent of USCP action items were abated. Successfully
abated over 350 safety deficiencies in USCP occupied spaces. We
also successfully established a Safety Awareness Program.
In other logistics areas we have improved warehouse
inventory management, updated and revised internal standard
operating procedures and improved our preventative maintenance
system.
DISCUSSION ON NEW POLICE CHIEF SELECTION STATUS
Senator Allard. I would encourage you to keep on it and
keep up the work. Now, Mr. Livingood, where are we in finding a
new chief for the department, and what time frame do you think
we are looking at for a hire there?
Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman, the Capitol Police Board has
requested the department to develop a concept for the search
for a new Chief of Police. This concept is being developed as
we speak to include use of a search firm, the selection
criteria, and items such as that. Upon approval of the concept,
a statement of work and deliverables, the process is estimated
to be accomplished in approximately 3 to 4 months.
INSPECTOR GENERAL SELECTION STATUS
Senator Allard. Very good. Now, what about the inspector
general? That's another area where we have a search process in
place.
Mr. Livingood. Yes, sir. The search has been completed by
the search firm, and the first interviews by the three
inspector generals selected I understand has been completed or
is in the process of being completed, and we, the Board, will
start interviews, we think, within the next 2 weeks--2 to 3
weeks.
MASTER TRAINING PLAN--CAPITOL POLICE
Senator Allard. Now, I'd like to move to training. You
talked somewhat in your comments, Chief McGaffin, about
training. Do we have a master training plan for our Capitol
Police?
Acting Chief McGaffin. We have--the training services
bureau, that's the group that is responsible for providing all
the training for the police department, has developed a 2-year
business plan that includes within it steps toward improving
master training plans, schedules, initiatives associated with
all the training within the police department.
Senator Allard. So, it also includes organizational
training policies as well as----
Acting Chief McGaffin. Sir----
Senator Allard [continuing]. On-the-street training, so to
speak.
Acting Chief McGaffin. It certainly does. It cuts all the
way across--sworn civilian, recruit, in-service, and it is
undergoing a review now with great emphasis and great energy
being placed on improving it and ensuring that it meets every
core competency that is being identified within all the
positions and jobs we have in the department.
Senator Allard. So, what do you see as the greatest
challenge in updating this document?
Acting Chief McGaffin. It is a challenge, and we are
working toward meeting it.
Senator Allard. What part of it is the greatest challenge?
Acting Chief McGaffin. Oh, the greatest challenge? I'm
sorry, Mr. Chairman. We have several. One is staffing. You
know, to identify core competencies and the training
requirements and the different positions we have is a
challenge, but a greater one is to ensure that you have the
right instructor staff and competencies within that instructor
staff to deliver the training. And so, it's a balance. Within
limited FTE staffing levels, we have got to pull men and women
out of the line to put them into the training services bureau.
So, we are looking at some strategies that would achieve
efficiencies in those areas as well to include adjunct
instructors who would be considered practitioners who would
come off the line.
For example, in our driver training program or our firearms
program, when we would be running those courses, we would be
bringing officers who are, in fact, drivers and who have been
certified as instructors in that area to come in and conduct
those classes. We also use our legal staff to come in and to
conduct legal updates and constitutional law reviews for us.
So, we are looking for efficiencies there as well, but that is
a big challenge.
CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Allard. I'd like to thank you, Chief McGaffin. This
is sort of a last-minute responsibility you have had to incur.
It's difficult to show up before this subcommittee, but we just
want to thank you for stepping forward, and you have done a
great job. Thank you for that. I also want to thank the whole
Police Board for your effort.
CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD
STATEMENT OF HON. WILSON LIVINGOOD, CHAIRMAN, CAPITOL
POLICE BOARD AND CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
HON. WILLIAM H. PICKLE, SERGEANT AT ARMS
HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, FAIA
TOM STEVENS, DIRECTOR OF VISITOR SERVICES
Senator Allard. We'll now move on to the Capitol Guide
Board. Mr. Livingood, you're the chairman, so you'll be our
next panel. We're ready when you are.
Mr. Livingood. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
for the Capitol Guide Board to appear before this subcommittee.
I am pleased to come before you today to report on the
operations of the Capitol Guide Service and the Congressional
Special Services Office. With me today are Mr. William Pickle,
the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and Mr. Alan Hantman, the
Architect of the Capitol, who are members of the Capitol Guide
Board, and Mr. Tom Stevens, Director of Visitor Services.
PRIMARY FUNCTION
The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to
provide an educational, accessible, and enjoyable visit to the
United States Capitol for over 1 million visitors each year.
The employees of the Capitol Guide Service and the
Congressional Special Services Office provide a wide range of
tour-related services to Member offices and public. We have
had, as I said, over 1 million visitors this year, and that's
on public tours, large group of Member's tours, congressional
staff-led tours, and adaptive tours for visitors with
disabilities.
At the current level, we this year may well reach over 1.5
million visitors to the Capitol before October 2006.
As a quick background and I have submitted my full
testimony for the record, but just as a quick background, the
Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876, and
they initially employed three guides.
And since then, as you know, the Guide Service and the role
of the Guide Service has expanded--not only in terms of
managing visitors to the Capitol, but in terms of added
responsibilities. Following the events of September 11, the
Capitol Guide Board called upon the Guide Service to assist the
Capitol Police with emergency preparedness. Guide Service
management is now equipped with emergency radios, providing a
communications bridge to the Guide Service's own radio system.
All Guide Service personnel have been trained in evacuation
procedures. The Guide Service staff assists the Capitol Police
in evacuation of all those tourists on public tours when
needed.
In addition to its daily responsibilities, the Guide
Service and the CSSO help facilitate visitors through the
Capitol during special events, such as the 2005 Presidential
Inauguration, the lying in State for President Ronald Reagan
and the lying in honor for Rosa Parks.
BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Capitol Guide
Service and the Congressional Services Office is $8,489,000.
This request includes $4,450,000 for existing operations, which
is an increase of $352,000 or 8.6 percent over the fiscal year
2006 budget. Of that amount, 93 percent of this increase
includes the COLA and increases in personnel benefits.
The single largest increase in the fiscal year 2007 request
includes an additional $4,039,000 to fund 71 additional FTEs
and related equipment for operations in the new Capitol Visitor
Center. The Guide Service and Congressional Special Services
Office are currently funded for 72 employees, so this is in
addition to that. The Architect of the Capitol has conducted a
thorough study of the number and type of new positions
necessary for tour operations in the new Capitol Visitor
Center. The Guide Board's request for fiscal year 2007 funding
reflects this need. In addition, the funding request includes
the tour-related equipment necessary for beginning the
transition to operations in the Capitol Visitor Center as soon
as possible.
As we begin to transition to the new Capitol Visitor
Center, we welcome the opportunity to increase the duties and
responsibilities of the Capitol Guide Service to meet the needs
of the congressional community and the visiting public.
In closing, the dedicated employees of the Capitol Guide
Service and the Congressional Special Services Office do a
tremendous, dedicated job in providing the maximum in visitor
service to all who come here to the Capitol. Yet, none of this
would be possible without the support of this subcommittee.
Thank you for your ongoing support, and we'll be happy to
answer any questions at this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wilson Livingood
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity for the Capitol Guide Board to appear before the Committee.
I am pleased to come before you today to report on the operations of
the Capitol Guide Service and its Congressional Special Services
Office. With me today are Mr. William H. Pickle, the Senate Sergeant at
Arms and Mr. Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, who join me as
Members of the Capitol Guide Board. Also with me today is Mr. Tom
Stevens, Director of Visitor Service, who has the pleasure of
overseeing the day to day operations of the Capitol Guide Service.
The primary function of the Capitol Guide Service is to provide an
enjoyable and accessible visit to the United States Capitol for over
one million visitors annually. In fiscal year 2005 the Guide Service
accommodated approximately 353,000 visitors on Public tours alone.
Also, the Guide Service led approximately 96,000 visitors on Member
Reserved Group tours, 19,000 on Congressional member tours (early-
morning tours) and 7,000 on Dome tours. The Guide Service also trained
over 3,000 Congressional staff to give tours and regulated the flow of
approximately 680,000 visitors on staff-led tours. Additionally, the
Guide Service through its Congressional Special Services Office,
provided over 850 hours of sign language interpreting services for
Congressional business, accommodated more than 1,300 visitors on
adaptive tours for visitors with disabilities and provided elevator
escorts for more than 9,000 visitors. If current levels are an
indicator, we may reach 1.5 million visitors to the Capitol before this
October.
The Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876,
employing three guides when it was established for the centennial
celebration. The Capitol Guide Board--similar in composition to the
Capitol Police Board (House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and Architect
of the Capitol)--was established in 1970 to formalize the Guide Service
as a professional entity within the Congress and to supervise and
direct its operation.\1\ The authorizing legislation in 1970 called
upon the Guide Service, which employed twenty-four guides at the time,
to not only provide educational tours of the Capitol but also to
``assist the Capitol Police by providing ushering and informational
services, and other services not directly involving law enforcement, in
connection with ceremonial occasions in the Capitol or on Capitol
Grounds,'' among other duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective January 3, 1971, Public Law 91-510 made the tour
guides legislative employees under the jurisdiction of the Capitol
Guide Board. The first free guided tour was conducted on January 3,
1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then, the role of the Guide Service has expanded to include
additional responsibilities. Following the events of 9/11, we called
upon the Guide Service to assist the Capitol Police with emergency
preparedness. Guide Service management is now equipped with emergency
radios, providing a communications bridge to the Guide Service's own
radio system. All Guide Service personnel have been trained in
evacuation procedures. It falls to the Guide Service staff to assist
the Capitol Police in the evacuation of those on public tours, who for
the most part, have never been inside the Capitol Building before.
Today, we are budgeted for 72 Guide Service employees to perform
these services. We welcome the opportunity to increase the duties of
the Guide Service to meet the needs of the Congressional community as
we transition to the Capitol Visitor Center.
For fiscal year 2007, the Guide Service is requesting a total
budget of $8,489,000. This request includes $4,450,000 for existing
operations which is an increase of $352,000 or 8.6 percent over the
fiscal year 2006 budget. Of that amount, $328,000 (93 percent) of this
increase over fiscal year 2006 includes the estimated fiscal year 2007
COLA and increases in personnel benefits. This part of the requested
increase would enable the Guide Service to maintain the level of
service currently being provided to Members of Congress and their
guests based on current visitation volume and services provided.
Secondly, this request includes $4,039,000 to fund 71 additional FTEs
and related equipment to operate in the new Capitol Visitor Center.
The staff of the Capitol Guide Service and its Congressional
Special Services office has done a tremendous job in providing the
utmost in visitor services to all who come to experience the Capitol.
The accomplishments of this office would not be possible without the
support of this Committee. We thank you for your support and the
opportunity to present this testimony and answer your questions.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER OPENING
Senator Allard. Well, thank you. I have four questions here
I'd just like to cover with you this morning. The Guide Service
and you are planning for the opening of the Capitol Visitor
Center. Is this going to be a seamless operation as we move
forward with the CVC operations?
Mr. Livingood. Alan, do you want----
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, good morning.
Senator Allard. Good morning.
Mr. Hantman. Tom Stevens has been meeting with our
transition team, with our operations team regularly for the
last couple of years; talking about the role of the Capitol
Guide Service with respect to the operations of the visitor
center itself. We fully expect that once we get the executive
director on board and working together with this team, which
needs to be enlarged, both on the executive director side as
well as on the Guide Board side, that we will have a seamless
operation. Clearly, the plan is for hiring, starting in 2007,
for the Capitol Guide team, the additional 71 people that Zell
has identified. And obviously, the new functions that the Guide
Service will be accommodating; such as boarding buses, talking
to people before they actually get off the buses, to come into
the visitor center, greeting people once they come through the
screening area, working in the orientation theater areas,
bringing people into those theaters, out of the theaters to be
broken up into smaller groups to tour the Capitol building
itself. Inside the exhibition areas--all of these functions and
the new information desks inside the visitor center as well,
will be staffed by the new people identified for the Guide
Service. It's a tremendous increase in the responsibility and
scope. And with the ability now to welcome and educate people
as they come to visit their Nation's Capitol, as we have not
been able to do in the past, will be a wonderful new role, an
expanded role for the Guide Service.
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS
Senator Allard. Now, you've got 71 FTEs, and 24 of those
are going to be full time, and you're planning on 37 that will
be half time, or part time.
Mr. Hantman. Tom.
Mr. Stevens. It's 37 FTEs that actually split for 6-month
positions, so it's actually 74 bodies, if you will, during the
peak season.
Senator Allard. Okay, and do you anticipate any
difficulties in hiring these half-time employees?
Mr. Stevens. Well, we don't at this point. Zell has
volunteered their services to assist us in recruiting and
advertising and actually hiring those folks.
Senator Allard. Where are you anticipating the half-time
employees would come from?
Mr. Stevens. Well, what we see now are a number of college
students, retirees, folks that go south for the winter, but are
up here during the summer that enjoy the environment and come
to work for us. And this is in addition to our volunteer
staffing that we'll actually be beefing up.
Senator Allard. Okay. Now, are you confident that the
numbers of Guide Service employees requested for the CVC are
sufficient?
Mr. Stevens. I certainly believe for year one we will have
sufficient staffing. Hopefully we will not have any kind of
legislation that limits our maximum staffing levels. That is,
we are budgeted for 143 FTEs, including the current staff. Some
of those might be 9-month employees, some 6 month, and some 3
month. It's obviously unrealistic to try to hire all those
people and get them trained in a 1-month period. So, it'll be a
ramping up just as the season ramps up for us and then slowly
ramping down in the fall, as does the visitor season.
HIRING FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Allard. Based on the oversight that we have been
having on a monthly basis with the Capitol Visitor Center,
testimony is indicating that May is when the CVC would open.
When do you begin hiring for the CVC positions with a May
opening date?
Mr. Stevens. I think we have to anticipate somewhere very
close to the first of the year, aggressively advertising and
recruiting. Part of the challenge in training is finding
adequate space. We do some training now, but our facilities are
very limited. Maybe we can borrow some space to do some larger
training classes of 50 or 60 at a time, but that's probably
going to be the biggest challenge because much of what we do is
very unique to our office. They aren't skills that people
typically bring with them from previous employment. So, it does
take several weeks to even give people a rudimentary knowledge
of the building to where we are comfortable with them actually
interacting with the visitors.
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Senator Allard. Do we have to deal with a certificate of
occupancy on the new Capitol Visitor Center where people are
not allowed in until you get your final inspection? My point is
we may have part of the Capitol Visitor Center available if we
could get into it before final inspection for employee
training.
Mr. Hantman. We would expect, Mr. Chairman, that for
training functions, some of the functions that Tom and the team
will need to go through, that we'd be able to do that a period
of weeks before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the
central area. The training that would have to go on that would,
say, use outside sample groups, if you will, to move through
the center would probably be done more likely after a
certificate of occupancy was obtained for general people to
come in as opposed to employees.
Senator Allard. Okay. That's all the questions I have.
Again, I want to thank the panel for showing up this morning
and testifying before this subcommittee.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
The subcommittee stands in recess until Wednesday, April
26, at 10:30 a.m. when we will take testimony from the
Government Accountability Office on its fiscal year 2007 budget
request, as well as receive an update from the Architect of the
Capitol and the GAO on the progress of the Capitol Visitor
Center. Look forward to seeing you then. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., Wednesday, April 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, April 26.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENE L. DODARO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
GEORGE G. STRADER, CONTROLLER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The hour of 10:30 having arrived and
staying on schedule like we do, we're going to call the
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch to order. This is a
hearing on the 2007 budget for the Government Accountability
Office (GAO). We will meet today to take testimony on the
fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Government
Accountability Office, as well as review other GAO matters.
Welcoming our witnesses this morning, we have Mr. David
Walker, Comptroller General; Gene Dodaro, Chief Operating
Officer; Sallyanne Harper, Chief Administrative Officer; and
George Strader, GAO's Controller. I look forward to hearing how
you are implementing goal setting and tying that in with your
budget figures and employee performance.
NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ON MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM
Before we discuss GAO's fiscal 2007 budget request, I'd
like to take a few moments to discuss an issue of deep concern
to me. On April 2 of this year, the New York Times published a
story alleging that the Government Accountability Office--and I
quote, ``ignored evidence that contractors doctored data,
skewed test results, and made false claims,'' close quote, in a
2002 report on missile defense. The article was based on
information provided by Mr. Subrata Ghoshroy, a GAO analyst who
is on loan to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The information provided by Mr. Ghoshroy raises several
troubling issues and calls into question the integrity of the
GAO's investigative process. Even more disturbing are Mr.
Ghoshroy's accusations that GAO personnel deliberately
undermined this investigation and possibly altered documents to
avoid investigating key items that might have lead to
revelations of contractor fraud.
I am especially interested in knowing how GAO made a
unilateral decision to alter the scope of the investigation
without securing the concurrence of the members who requested
the investigation.
Mr. Walker, I realize that some have used this issue to
promote their own political agenda. In the context of this
hearing, the policy does not interest me, really. I am
interested in the process. And as the subcommittee responsible
for overseeing the GAO, I believe we have an obligation to get
to the bottom of the allegations. The GAO's reputation and
credibility depends upon its ability to accurately investigate
the executive branch on behalf of Congress. Accountability,
integrity, and reliability are GAO's core tenets and I think we
need to maintain those.
So Mr. Walker, please proceed with your statement.
Mr. Walker. Sure. Would you like me to address that issue
now.
Senator Allard. Yes.
And then, let's go ahead and move on to your budget.
MR. WALKER'S RESPONSE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE
Mr. Walker. That'll be great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's
a pleasure to be back before you and I look forward to talking
about the budget. But let me go ahead and address this issue,
because I think it is important we try to put it to rest.
First, the allegations lack merit. Just because they are
printed, doesn't mean they are true. I can tell you that we
conducted three internal reviews on this matter. Any time that
I received a complaint, from either Mr. Berman or Mr. Ghoshroy,
I expeditiously took steps to try to review those. I
commissioned three internal reviews and all of those reviews
came out to say that the assertions lacked merit.
Furthermore, there was a prize winning investigative
reporter from 1 of the top 10 papers in the United States--who
spent months last year conducting an independent investigation
of this. And after months, the reporter determined that it
lacked merit and was not worthy of publication.
Furthermore, I think it's important for you to know, that
this report was 1 of about 4,000 that we've issued in the last
several years. It's also one of many that we've issued on
national missile defense, and we take our quality control
procedures very seriously. We want you to be able to rely upon
our work and for the American people to be able to rely on our
work. I think it's important for you to also know that last
year we had two independent peer reviews conducted of GAO's
quality assurance processes. One by KPMG on our financial
audits. One by a multinational team lead by Canada, involving
seven countries who looked at our quality control procedures
and non-financial audit work. You can rely on our work.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM MISSILE DEFENSE ENGAGEMENT
Now with regard to lessons learned. There are two important
lessons learned from this engagement. Number one, we never
should have accepted it from day one. We were asked to do work
on a matter that, after further investigation, was pending in
the Federal courts. In my view, there was an attempt to get GAO
to intervene in private party litigation and to use GAO's work
to further that private party litigation. That is wholly
inappropriate, in my opinion.
So first, we made a mistake by accepting the engagement.
But after it became clear, and after we had accepted to do some
work, that we were being asked to do something relating to
litigation that was pending, we made an attempt to modify the
objectives of the engagement, in order to be able to do
something without directly intervening in that litigation.
In doing that, we made a second mistake. And that is, when
we communicated with the requestor's staff about the need to
make a change and what our change would be, we did not
communicate it in writing. That was a mistake. As a result,
that led to an expectation gap between the requestor and us as
well as I think, this particular employee who is on a leave of
absence, who has dogged us ever since.
We have modified our procedures with regard to engagement
acceptance. We have also modified our procedures with regard to
modifying engagement objectives after we've accepted an
engagement. We have not had any other instances like this
occur, and I can assure you we'll do everything we can to make
sure it doesn't reoccur. But I can also assure you, that you
can rely upon our work including that report.
BACKGROUND ON MISSILE DEFENSE ARTICLE
Senator Allard. Now, I'm just going to follow up with a
question and we'll just get this off the table and move on with
the budget. It's really unusual for a GAO employee to come
forward like this. I can't recall any, and you indicated in
your testimony that has never happened. In this particular
instance, what caused your analyst to complain to the press,
from your point of view?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent, I would be
speculating. I think the problem is, that the analyst wanted us
to do the original work and when we modified the scope of the
engagement to make sure that we did not interject GAO into
ongoing litigation, I think the analyst had difficulty
accepting that, even though it was very consistent with GAO's
longstanding policy well before I was at GAO, that we won't
interject ourselves into pending litigation.
I think the analyst also had difficulty in understanding
that while every person's opinion counts at GAO, no matter what
your position is, no matter what your level is, no matter what
your classification is, in the final analysis while everybody
needs to be heard and is heard, we make institutional
decisions.
Senator Allard. And this was in a lawsuit that he had a
personal interest in?
Mr. Walker. To my knowledge, he didn't have a personal
interest. But it's also my understanding; he may have known
some of the parties who did have a personal interest in the
litigation. That's something that we're following up on. Since
the report appeared in the New York Times, I have received
information from a party, not in government, but a very high
ranking official who's aware of this situation, who believes
that there may have been some relationships that need to be
reviewed, and we are in the process of doing that. These are
allegations. They may or may not be true. And unless and until
we review it and investigate it, I would prefer not to go into
more detail. But I would be more than happy to keep you
apprised, as I promised Congressman Berman as well as Senator
Grassley to keep them apprised.
Senator Allard. Well I would appreciate that. I'm glad that
you feel that you've learned some things. We all make mistakes
occasionally and we need to learn from those mistakes. But
aside from that, do you think the review was taken in the most
professional and unbiased manner possible?
Mr. Walker. You can rely on that work, Mr. Chairman. The
other thing that one has to keep in mind, is the Justice
Department was already well aware of this matter.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Walker. And so, this was not something new. This was
not something where people were relying on GAO to be able to
advise the Justice Department as to whether or not the
Government's interest should be protected. In fact, the Justice
Department conducted its own independent review, it's my
understanding, to determine whether and to what extent they
should intervene in this action. They decided not to intervene
in this action.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, we have spent a tremendous
amount of time institutionally, as well as myself individually,
and we've spent a significant amount of taxpayer resources
taking this matter very seriously. I'm just hoping we're to the
point that we can move forward.
PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CONGRESS ON MISSILE DEFENSE
Senator Allard. Yes. You've now talked to Mr. Berman and
Senator Grassley about this misjudgment that you've made in
taking on the case and subsequently had to change the scope.
Even though it was after the fact, did they agree in light of
the court case, that this is a change that needed to be made?
Mr. Walker. They understand and they accept what we did and
why we did it. I've spoken to Mr. Berman on several occasions
over several years about this. In fact, I was very surprised
when the article appeared in the New York Times, because there
had been no attempt to communicate with me on this for almost 2
years. After all the efforts I had taken, and that we
institutionally had taken on this, it was really a surprise to
me. In fact, the letter that resulted in the New York Times
article--the 41 page letter, dated December 19, 2005, was never
provided to me or anybody else at GAO. We had to get it off of
Mr. Berman's website the day after it appeared in the New York
Times.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Walker. I will say for the record, that I had the
professional courtesy to send Subrata Ghoshroy a copy of my
response to his letter, which I think obviously, is
appropriate.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S POLICY ON ENGAGEMENTS PENDING
LITIGATION
Senator Allard. Yes. Now your policy, prior to 2002, has
not been to take on studies that might involve you in a court
case. Is that the policy now?
Mr. Walker. Our policy was and remains not to have GAO
directly address issues that are pending before the Federal
courts.
Senator Allard. Is it just Federal courts or is it local
courts too?
Mr. Walker. It's general--it's any court. But typically,
its Federal courts when somebody would be involving us to do
anything regarding Federal spending, programs or whatever else.
We never should have accepted it. Once we did accept it, we
endeavored to try to be able to modify the objectives to not
directly intervene. But that created certain expectation gaps
within our organization and outside our organization. In fact,
I communicated with Mr. Berman about this within the last
couple of weeks and I think we both agree, that rather than
modify the objectives, we probably should have said, we're not
going to do anything.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Walker. Because it created certain expectation gaps.
So, as you know, no good deed goes unpunished. I mean you're
trying to provide some type of service. But we have learned
lessons. In summary, you can rely on this report and we did
take the complaints very seriously.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES
Senator Allard. Now how does GAO deal with concerns that
are raised by analysts as to the direction the report is going
in or the conclusions being drawn during the course of the job?
Mr. Walker. Let me provide an overview of our quality
control procedures, Mr. Chairman. I think it would help. As you
can imagine, we receive 25 to 50 requests in a typical week
from the Congress for us to do work. Every Monday afternoon,
Gene Dodaro, our Chief Operating Officer, after getting input
from me, chairs a meeting reviewing all of those requests
involving the managing directors of all of our key teams, and
we make a decision, typically within 10 days, on whether or not
we're going to accept it. We also assign who is going to be the
leader. We also identify, given the nature of the work, the
complexity of the work, what we're being asked to do, and who
the other key stakeholders are that need to be involved. For
most of the work that we do, there are multiple key
stakeholders, or multiple organizations, as was the case with
this report. There are usually a number of key organizations
that have to be involved to bring the right skills and
knowledge together to do the best job and to mitigate related
risk.
Then staff are assigned. We have an extensive quality
control process that includes periodic status reports on each
major engagement. We also have a quality control process that
includes internal reviews of all draft reports. We have a
quality control process that includes providing an opportunity
for any of the agencies that would be affected, to comment on
the report before it is made final. If there are differences of
opinion within our agency between key stakeholders, they are to
buck it up the chain of command. If necessary, to my level, to
get it resolved.
Interestingly with regard to this report, we have a policy
where before we issue any report, every stakeholder that's
assigned to the engagement has to sign off on the report. That
was the case here, including the person who's complaining.
Senator Allard. So the person who's raising the complaint
signed off on the report?
Mr. Walker. He signed off on the report.
ENSURING THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORTS ARE IMPARTIAL
Senator Allard. Okay. Now, what steps do you take to ensure
that your employees or consultants that you are working with
don't have an over sympathetic relationship with individuals
involved in your investigation, in a way that might distort the
outcome of that report?
Mr. Walker. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have professional
independence standards that relate to GAO. We also have
supplemental internal policies and procedures. We set a very
high bar on both institutional independence, as well as
individual independence with regard to particular engagements.
So when we're staffing, we're looking for that. The people have
to let us know if they think they have any potential
impairments that we need to be aware of. I would ask Gene
Dodaro, our Chief Operating Officer, to comment in more detail.
Senator Allard. Mr. Dodaro.
Mr. Dodaro. Good morning, Senator. We have several
different safeguards in place. Annually, each employee is to
sign a statement of independence, saying that they are free
from any personal impairments. Every employee also files a
financial disclosure statement that's reviewed by their
supervisor, so we can tell if they have any financial interest
that may be an issue.
Then, when individual engagements are staffed, every
employee is reminded that they are to notify their manager if
they have any personal or other conflicts with their assignment
to that engagement. And then, they sign off on every individual
engagement.
Now, we didn't have that particular procedure in place back
when this engagement was conducted, but we've added it since
then. We've always had the annual certification. We've always
had the requirement that each employee notify managers if they
have any conflicts of interest.
So the burden is on individual employees to notify
managers. But we do have institutional safeguards and do some
independent checking, as well.
Senator Allard. Okay. And just kind of a summary question
here. Mr. Dodaro, you mentioned a couple lessons learned. Can
we just get a summary of lessons learned and then actions that
have been taken, so that doesn't happen again?
Mr. Walker. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We'd be happy to
provide that for the record.
Senator Allard. If you would, please.
Mr. Walker. We will do it.
[The information follows:]
Question. How has GAO responded to the allegations about the
February 2002 missile defense program report and what changes, if any,
have you made to GAO's internal processes as a result?
Answer. We have taken these concerns very seriously. In total, I
initiated three internal reviews to respond to the concerns and most
recently, in April 2006, provided a detailed response to Senator
Grassley and Representative Berman addressing questions about the
report. In summary,
--The three internal reviews that have been conducted, including one
by our Inspector General, found that our 2002 report was done
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards and the allegations raised were not substantiated. In
particular, these reviews determined that there was no credible
evidence supporting the assertion of conflicts of interest by
GAO personnel involved with the engagement nor was there any
credible evidence that would raise questions regarding the
integrity of our workpapers.
--The missile defense report's findings represent the consensus view
of our most senior technical and professional staff.
Differences of opinion during the course of the work were
resolved by the time the report was issued, as evidenced by the
signatures of all the ``stakeholders'' on the engagement,
including the employee making the assertions. As a result, we
continue to stand behind the report. While the employee who
made the allegations, like all the other team members did play
a role in this engagement, he was one of four technical people
involved in the project. In addition, while all GAO employees'
opinions are important and sought, the opinion of a single
individual is not sufficient to create an institutional
position.
--Importantly, the objective of our engagement was not to adjudicate
whether false claims had or had not been made nor did we
attempt to do so. In hindsight, we should not have accepted the
original July 2000 request because of the then-ongoing
litigation over the central issues involved in the sensor test.
Once we identified the need to restructure the engagement in
order to be consistent with long-standing GAO policy involving
matters pending before the courts, we took corrective action to
avoid directly inserting GAO into the issues that were the
subject of the litigation. The Justice Department was already
aware of allegations of false claims prior to GAO issuing its
report. Furthermore, the Justice Department conducted its own
review of this matter and decided not to pursue it. As I have
noted in previous communications on this matter, we should have
done a better job of communicating to the requester that we
were revising our audit scope and objectives and documenting
such revisions. Clearly this communication gap underlies the
fundamental misunderstanding that is at the heart of this
dispute both internally and externally, which has now consumed
a significant amount of time and taxpayer resources over
several years.
--GAO has a strong, clear, and consistent record of aggressively
pursuing fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement within
government, including the Defense Department, in general, and
defense contracting and weapons acquisitions, in particular. In
fact, eight individual DOD areas are on GAO's high risk list
including weapons systems acquisition and several government
wide high risk areas apply to DOD as well. Our reviews of
missile defense issues have been an important part of this body
of work.
In part as a result of the 2002 missile defense report, we have
clarified our written policies and introduced new procedures pertaining
to requests for work that deal with issues in litigation. Our written
policies have been revised to emphasize that our Office of General
Counsel should help identify and analyze any ongoing or anticipated
litigation that could affect the engagement acceptance decision, and
that this office should be consulted about such matters. In addition,
the July 2004 update to our Congressional Protocols specifies that one
of the factors that will be considered in determining whether to accept
congressional requests is whether the matter is pending before
administrative or judicial forums. We also have been giving greater
attention to this issue at our weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting,
where all new congressional requests and mandates are discussed to
determine, among other things, whether the work should be done and the
appropriate level of Office of Comptroller General involvement. Known
or potential issues involving litigation are discussed at the
Engagement Acceptance Meeting as part of deciding whether GAO should
accept the engagement. Lastly, we hold bi-weekly Engagement Review
Meetings to discuss progress or issues on ongoing assignments that may
require senior GAO management attention, such as litigation that may
have been initiated since an engagement was begun and that may impact
the engagement's scope or objectives.
Regarding the issue of communicating changes in the scope of GAO
work to requesters, once I became aware of the miscommunication on the
missile defense engagement, we strengthened our internal policies and
practices to protect against such communication problems in the future.
Specifically, our practice is now to not only discuss significant
changes in the scope of work, but also to document this discussion with
a letter to the requester outlining the changes. Additional
communication requirements in the protocols include holding discussions
and sending documenting letters concerning our acceptance/declination
of a request; and our agreement with the requester on the terms of the
engagement. The practice of providing briefings and sending letters to
the requester whenever there is a significant change in the objectives
or scope of an engagement--coupled with the attention we give to these
issues in Engagement Acceptance and Engagement Review Meetings--should
help ensure solid communications with our congressional clients on
these issues.
In regard to assuring the independence of GAO staff, at the start
of each engagement, the engagement's Director discusses the need to
maintain independence with the engagement team and asks if anyone has
any independence issues. This discussion is documented. If an
individual's personal impairment cannot be mitigated, the individual
will not perform the audit. When the design of an engagement is
completed and documented (referred to as a design matrix), all
engagement staff and stakeholders certify on the design matrix that
they are free of any impairments to their independence and that they
will notify their supervisor if such impairments should arise.
Finally, it is our longstanding policy and practice that GAO's
professional staff represent their independence by (1) signing an
annual Statement of Independence stating that they have no personal or
external impairments and understand the requirements for independence
as stated in our professional standards (Generally Accepted Government
Auditing Standards), (2) identifying financial interests and filing an
annual Financial Disclosure report that is reviewed by Executive
Committee members, Managing Directors, or designees; and (3) reporting
to their Managing Director when they are seeking employment at the
entity being audited and obtaining their Managing Director's approval
to engage in outside activities.
Question. What policies and practices have you put in place to
assure that (1) GAO does not accept requests for work on matters
involving pending litigation, (2) changes in the scope of work are
communicated to requesters, and (3) GAO staff are free of any
impairments related to the subject or conduct of an engagement?
Answer. It has been our long-standing policy to generally avoid
addressing any issue that is directly related to a matter pending in
the Courts. In addition, we do not believe it is appropriate to use GAO
as a means of advancing the interests or positions of private parties
in pending litigation, whether intentionally or unintentionally. As a
general rule, we will seek to avoid such engagements unless we believe
we can structure our work to avoid influencing or directly interfering
with pending litigation.
In part as a result of the 2002 missile defense report, we have
clarified our written policies and introduced new procedures pertaining
to requests for work that deal with issues in litigation. Our written
policies have been revised to emphasize that our Office of General
Counsel should help identify and analyze any ongoing or anticipated
litigation that could affect the engagement acceptance decision, and
that this office should be consulted about such matters. In addition,
the July 2004 update to our Congressional Protocols specifies that one
of the factors that will be considered in determining whether to accept
congressional requests is whether the matter is pending before
administrative or judicial forums. We also have been giving greater
attention to this issue at our weekly Engagement Acceptance Meeting,
where all new congressional requests and mandates are discussed to
determine, among other things, whether the work should be done and the
appropriate level of Office of Comptroller General involvement. Lastly,
we hold bi-weekly Engagement Review Meetings to discuss progress or
issues on ongoing assignments that may require senior GAO management
attention, such as litigation that may have been initiated since an
engagement was begun and that may impact the engagement's scope or
objectives.
Regarding the issue of communicating changes in the scope of GAO
work to requesters, once we became aware of the miscommunication on the
missile defense engagement, we strengthened our internal policies and
practices to protect against such communication problems in the future.
Specifically, our practice is now to not only discuss significant
changes in the scope of work, but also to document this discussion with
a letter to the requester outlining the changes. Additional
communication requirements in the protocols include holding discussions
and sending documenting letters concerning our acceptance/declination
of a request; and our agreement with the requester on the terms of the
engagement. The practice of providing briefings and sending letters to
the requester whenever there is a significant change in the objectives
or scope of an engagement--coupled with the attention we give to these
issues in Engagement Acceptance and Engagement Review Meetings--should
help ensure solid communications with our congressional clients on
these issues.
In regard to assuring the independence of GAO staff, at the start
of each engagement, the engagement's Director discusses the need to
maintain independence with the engagement team and asks if anyone has
any independence issues. This discussion is documented. If an
individual's personal impairment cannot be mitigated, the individual
will not perform the audit. When the design of an engagement is
completed and documented (referred to as a design matrix), all
engagement staff and stakeholders certify on the design matrix that
they are free of any impairments to their independence and that they
will notify their supervisor if such impairments should arise.
Finally, it is our longstanding policy and practice that GAO's
professional staff represent their independence by (1) signing an
annual Statement of Independence stating that they have no personal or
external impairments and understand the requirements for independence
as stated in our professional standards (Generally Accepted Government
Auditing Standards), (2) identifying financial interests and filing an
annual Financial Disclosure report that is reviewed by Executive
Committee members, Managing Directors, or designees; and (3) reporting
to their Managing Director when they are seeking employment at the
entity being audited and obtaining their Managing Director's approval
to engage in outside activities.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Senator Allard. Okay. Let's go ahead and proceed with your
budget, and hear what you have to say in that regard.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very
much. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you again, and I want to thank your subcommittee for your past
support. Briefly, I'd like to touch on some of our
accomplishments for last year, and then our budget request for
2007.
In the last fiscal year, ended September 30, 2005, as you
know, GAO is trying to lead by example in transforming what we
do and how we do business, focusing on positive results that
benefit the Congress and the American people. Last year, we met
or exceeded 10 of our 14 performance measures. We matched or
set all time records for three of those performance measures.
We achieved $39.6 billion in financial benefits. That's an $83
return for every $1 invested in GAO. That's number one in the
world. Nobody's even close. Nobody else is even in double
digits. We had a 93 percent positive client feedback score and
we set all time records on our employee feedback scores. So on
all dimensions; it was a very good year.
We issued two strategic documents of critical importance to
the Congress and the country. The first was our ``High Risk
Update'' listing high risk programs, functions, and activities
in the Federal Government. The second one was our ``21st
Century Challenges'' document, which I know Mr. Chairman,
you've seen. This document lays out a series of questions that
need to be asked and answered in order to re-engineer the
Government to address 21st century challenges and capitalize on
related opportunities.
We strengthened various partnerships, both domestically and
internationally. For example, we led the effort to develop the
first ever strategic plan for auditors general around the
world, modeled after GAO's plan. We also led the effort that
resulted in the first ever National Intergovernmental Audit
Forum strategic plan which involves Federal, State, and local
auditors. It's important that we partner for progress, because
we all have limited resources, if we're going to achieve
maximum results.
We successfully completed, as I mentioned before, two
external peer reviews, providing assurance to the Congress and
the American people in connection with our quality control
processes. They resulted not only in clean opinions, but also a
number of global good practices that were identified.
A couple of areas for continuous improvement were noted in
the reports, and we are taking steps in light of those
recommendations. We have implemented additional flexibilities
provided by this Congress, dealing with our human capital
classification and compensation systems. We now have market-
based pay ranges for all GAO personnel. We now have a
compensation system that pays based upon skills, knowledge, and
performance. We also have extended pay banding to all of our
administrative personnel. There are no GAO employees on the GS
system. Not one.
We are a window to the future, Mr. Chairman, with regard to
this area. We most recently--and this is in fiscal 2006, had to
accomplish the most difficult thing we'll ever do internally
and that is to make tough decisions for our so-called Band II,
or mid-level senior auditors, investigators, analysts, and
evaluators, to determine which ones should benefit from higher
pay ranges that came out of the pay study and which ones should
not.
We found when that pay study came out, that it was good
news and bad news. The good news was, depending on a person's
level of responsibilities and their performance; they should
have the opportunity to earn up to $10,000 more than under our
old system. The bad news was that if some persons were not
leading on a recurring basis or their performance did not
justify, we were paying them too much. And so, we had to go
through a system, on an individual by individual basis, which I
am happy to answer questions on if you so desire, that resulted
in decisions for applicable individuals, including some
resulting from personal appeals that came to me.
In the final analysis, we've got only 1 percent of our Band
II employees that have made independent appeals to our external
review body. I think that is a minor miracle, and we obviously
look forward to working with that body to resolve those
appeals.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
As far as 2007, as has been the case, we are trying to be
modest with regard to our budget requests. We know the country
is in a deficit situation. We're asking for about a 5-percent
increase relating directly and overwhelmingly to mandatory and
uncontrollable increases.
I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman that you not
just consider what our increase is for this year, but also how
we've been treated over the last several years. For example,
since fiscal 2000, GAO's budget has increased 10 percent in
constant dollars. The average legislative branch constant
dollar increase during the same period is 36 percent. So I
would respectfully suggest that you not just look at what we're
asking for now, but how we've been treated in the past and what
results we're generating for the Congress and the American
people, making the tough decisions that you're going to have to
make, with regard to limited resource allocations.
We're asking for 50 additional full-time equivalents
(FTEs). The reason we're asking for them, is that we're facing
increasing supply and demand imbalances in congressional
requests versus our ability to address those requests in a
timely manner in several areas, such as healthcare and homeland
security.
And last, we're asking for a few targeted investments based
on a business case, one time money that we would hopefully get
funded for and will reverse out of our base, for things like
replacing our 20 year old financial management system and
enhancing our physical and information security requirements.
In that regard, Mr. Chairman, it's not just for us, but we're
one of several contingent sites for the Congress in the event
of an unexpected catastrophic event.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, we're not just trying to take care of ourselves and our
people, we're also trying to be in a position to help the
Congress in the event that the Congress needs to use our
facilities, which has already happened once in the history of
the republic. I hope it won't happen again. But if it does, we
want to be ready.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear
before the Committee today in support of the fiscal year 2007 budget
request for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). This
request will help us continue our support of the Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and will help improve the
performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for
the benefit of the American people.
Budget constraints in the federal government grew tighter in fiscal
years 2005 and 2006. In developing our fiscal year 2007 budget, we
considered those constraints consistent with GAO's and the Committee's
desire to ``lead by example.'' In fiscal year 2007, we are requesting
budget authority of $509.4 million, a reasonable 5 percent increase
over our fiscal year 2006 revised funding level. In the event Congress
acts to hold federal pay increases to 2.2 percent, our requested
increase will drop to below 5 percent. This request will allow us to
continue making improvements in productivity, maintain our progress in
technology and other transformation areas, and support a full-time
equivalent (FTE) staffing level of 3,267. This represents an increase
of 50 FTEs over our planned fiscal year 2006 staffing level and will
allow us to rebuild our workforce to a level that will position us to
better respond to increasing supply and demand imbalances in areas such
as disaster assistance, the global war on terrorism, homeland security,
forensic auditing, and health care.
I am proud of the work we accomplished this past fiscal year in
support of the Congress and the American people. We provided our
congressional clients with timely, objective, and reliable information
on how well government programs and policies are working and, when
needed, recommendations for improvement. In the years ahead, our
support to the Congress will likely prove to be even more critical
because of the pressures created by our nation's current and projected
budget deficit and growing long-term fiscal imbalance. Indeed, as it
considers those fiscal pressures, the Congress will be grappling with
tough choices about what government does, how it does business, and who
should do the government's business. GAO is a valuable tool for helping
the Congress review, reprioritize, and revise existing mandatory and
discretionary spending programs and tax policies. Additionally, through
its involvement domestically with the federal, state, and local audit
community and internationally with its national audit office
counterparts, GAO has played--and will continue to play--an important
role in helping to ensure the financial integrity of U.S. funds
expended at home and abroad. GAO-led efforts to develop and implement
the first-ever strategic plans for the National Intergovernmental Audit
Forum and the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions
have helped improve the effectiveness of these audit organizations and
GAO to work more efficiently and cost-effectively.
In an effort to identify areas for potential improvement, GAO
underwent two peer reviews in fiscal year 2005. We obtained a clean
opinion on our performance audit practice from an international team of
experienced auditors--the first time that we have sought such an
opinion. The independent reviewers concluded that we have designed and
implemented an effective system of quality controls to provide
reasonable assurance of complying with generally accepted government
auditing standards, which are designed to ensure that audits of
government activities are objective, independent, and reliable. This
opinion validated that the Congress and the American people can rely on
our work and products. Also during fiscal year 2005, GAO received an
unqualified report, or clean opinion, on the results of the external
peer review of its financial audit practice. External peer reviews are
conducted on a 3-year cycle, and this is the fourth such clean opinion
that GAO has received from an external peer reviewer since the program
began in fiscal year 1996. The external peer reviewer, KPMG LLP, found
that the system of quality control for GAO's financial auditing
practice met professional standards and that GAO in fact complied with
the standards.
In fiscal year 2005, we met or exceeded targets for 10 of our 14
performance measures, while setting or matching all-time records for 3
measures. We documented $39.6 billion in financial benefits--a return
of $83 for every dollar we spent--and over 1,400 nonfinancial
benefits--a record for us. Our targets for fiscal years 2006 and 2007
will continue to challenge the agency in our efforts to support the
Congress and serve the American people. Beginning with fiscal year
2006, we will add 2 internal operations measures to the list. These 2
new performance measures will assess how well our mission and people
are supported by our infrastructure operations staff.
In fiscal year 2005, we issued two products that will assist the
Congress as it addresses future challenges. Recognizing the importance
and scope of these reports, we provided a copy to every member of
Congress and each Committee, as well as the White House. Our report
entitled 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government provides a series of illustrative questions related to 12
areas of federal activity as well as our perspective on various
strategies and approaches that should be considered as a possible means
to address the issues and questions raised in the report. Drawing on
our institutional knowledge and extensive program evaluation and
performance assessment work for the Congress, we presented over 200
specific 21st century questions illustrating the types of hard choices
our nation needs to face as it reexamines what the federal government
should do, how it should do it, and how it should be financed. We also
issued our High-Risk Series: An Update, which identifies federal areas
and programs at risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement and
those in need of broad-based transformations. The issues affecting many
of these areas and programs may take years to address, and the report
will serve as a useful guide for the Congress's future programmatic
deliberations and oversight activities. The current administration has
looked to our high-risk program in shaping governmentwide initiatives
such as the President's Management Agenda, which has at its base many
of the areas we had previously identified as high risk. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with GAO, is currently
working to ensure that agencies develop detailed action plans to
address high-risk areas, with the ultimate objective, over time, of
seeing these items removed from our high-risk list.
As in past years, during fiscal year 2005, our work covered a
number of major topics of concern to the nation and, in some cases, the
world. For example, we reported on the nation's long-term fiscal
challenges, the financial condition of the airline industry, spending
and reconstruction activities related to Iraq and Afghanistan, and
strengthening the visa process as an antiterrorism tool. We also
examined the Department of Defense's (DOD's) transformation challenges,
base realignment and closure issues, increasing the strategic focus of
federal acquisitions, protecting against identity theft, the oversight
of electricity markets, zero down-payment mortgages, and immigration
enforcement. We testified many times before the Congress, contributing
to the public debate on a variety of topics that included Social
Security reform, pension reform, postal reform, GSE oversight, wildland
fire management, gasoline prices, the flu vaccine, veterans' health
care, benefits for members of the Reserves and National Guard, digital
broadcast television, long-term health care financing, passport fraud
detection, reducing the tax gap, information security, and a range of
financial management and accountability issues. In addition, we
conducted a range of work on a variety of legislative branch agencies
and projects, including the Capitol Visitor Center, the Architect of
the Capitol, and the U.S. Capitol Police.
This past year we also continued to take steps internally to help
us achieve our goal of being a model federal agency and a world-class
professional services organization. These steps helped us to address
our three major management challenges--human capital, physical
security, and information security. Through the GAO Human Capital
Reform Act of 2004, the Congress granted GAO several additional human
capital flexibilities that will allow us, among other things, to move
to an even more performance-oriented and market-based compensation
system. As you have heard me say many times, our most valuable asset is
our people, and the flexibilities granted in this act will help us to
continue to modernize our people-related policies and strategies,
which, in turn, will help ensure that we are well-equipped to serve the
Congress and the American people in the years to come. As a result, we
are continuing to take a range of actions designed to modernize our
human capital policies and practices. In fiscal year 2005, we adopted a
broad pay band approach and a more performance-oriented pay system for
our administrative staff. In fiscal year 2006, we implemented a more
market-based and skills-, knowledge-, and performance-oriented
classification and pay system for all of our employees.
My testimony today will focus on our budget request for fiscal year
2007 to support the Congress and serve the American people and on our
performance and results with the funding you provided us in fiscal year
2005.
gao's fiscal year 2007 request to support the congress
Our fiscal year 2007 budget request will provide us the resources
necessary to achieve our performance goals in support of the Congress
and the American people. This request will allow GAO to improve
productivity and maintain progress in technology and other
transformation areas. We continue to streamline GAO, modernize our
policies and practices, and leverage technology so that we can achieve
our mission more effectively and efficiently. These continuing efforts
allow us to enhance our performance without significant increases in
funding. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request represents a modest
increase of about $25 million (or 5 percent) over our fiscal year 2006
revised funding level--primarily to cover uncontrollable mandatory pay
and price level increases. This request reflects a reduction of nearly
$5.4 million in nonrecurring fiscal year 2006 costs used to offset the
fiscal year 2007 increase. This request also includes about $7 million
in one-time fiscal year 2007 costs, which will not recur in fiscal year
2008, to upgrade our business systems and processes.
As the Congress addresses the devastation in the Gulf Coast region
from Hurricane Katrina and several other major 2005 hurricanes, GAO is
supporting the Congress by assessing whether federal programs assisting
the people of the Gulf region are efficient and effective and result in
a strong return on investment. In order to address the demands of this
work; better respond to the increasing number of demands being placed
on GAO, including a dramatic increase in health care mandates; and
address supply and demand imbalances in our ability to respond to
congressional interest in areas such as disaster assistance, homeland
security, the global war on terrorism, health care, and forensic
auditing, we are seeking your support to provide the funding to rebuild
our staffing level to the levels requested in previous years. We
believe that 3,267 FTEs is an optimal staffing level for GAO that would
allow us to more successfully meet the needs of the Congress.
In preparing this request and taking into account the effects of
the fiscal year 2006 rescission, we revised our workforce plan to
reduce fiscal year 2005 hiring and initiated a voluntary early
retirement opportunity for staff in January 2006. These actions better
support GAO's strategic plan for serving the Congress, better align
GAO's workforce to meet mission needs, correct selected skill
imbalances, and allow us to increase the number of new hires later in
fiscal year 2006. Our revised hiring plan represents an aggressive
hiring level that is significantly higher than in recent fiscal years,
and it is the maximum number of staff we could absorb during fiscal
year 2006. These actions will also position us to more fully utilize
our planned FTE levels of 3,217 and 3,267 in fiscal years 2006 and
2007, respectively.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget request includes approximately $502
million in direct appropriations and authority to use about $7 million
in estimated revenue from rental income and reimbursable audit work.
Table 1 summarizes the changes we are requesting in our fiscal year
2007 budget.
TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST, SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CHANGES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative
Budget category FTEs Amount percentage
change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 enacted budget authority..................... 3,217 $489,560 ...............
Less: rescission.......................................... .............. (4,896) ...............
-------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 revised budget authority............... .............. $484,664 ...............
=================================================
Fiscal year 2007 requested changes:
Nonrecurring fiscal year 2006 costs....................... .............. ($5,380) (1)
Mandatory pay costs....................................... 50 18,469 3
Price level changes....................................... .............. 4,073 4
Relatively controllable costs............................. .............. 7,528 ...............
Adjustment due to rounding................................ .............. 1 ...............
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--requested changes............................. 50 $24,691 5
-------------------------------------------------
Total fiscal year 2007 budget authority required to 3,267 $509,355 ...............
support GAO operations.................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget request supports three broad program
areas: Human Capital, Engagement Support, and Infrastructure
Operations. Consistent with our strategic goal to be a model agency, we
have undertaken a number of initiatives to implement performance-based,
market-oriented compensation systems; adopt best practices; benchmark
service levels and costs; streamline our operations; cross-service and
outsource activities; and leverage technology to increase efficiency,
productivity, and results.
The Human Capital Program provides the resources needed to support
a diverse, highly educated, knowledge-based workforce comprising
individuals with a broad array of technical and program skills and
institutional memory. This workforce represents GAO's human capital--
its greatest asset--and is critical to the agency's success in serving
the Congress and the nation. Human Capital Program costs represent
nearly 80 percent of our requested budget authority.
To further ensure our ability to meet congressional needs, we plan
to allocate approximately $17 million for Engagement Support to:
conduct travel, a critical tool to accomplish our mission of following
the federal dollar cross the country and throughout the world, and to
ensure the quality of our work; contract for expert advice and
assistance when needed to meet congressional timeframes for a
particular audit or engagement; and ensure a limited presence in the
Middle East to provide more timely, responsive information on U.S.
activities in the area.
In addition, we plan to allocate about $91 million--or about 18
percent of our total request--for Infrastructure Operations programs
and initiatives to provide the critical infrastructure to support our
work. These key activities include information technology, building
management, knowledge services, human capital operations, and support
services.
performance, results, and plans
In fiscal year 2005, the Congress focused its attention on a broad
array of challenging issues affecting the safety, health, and well-
being of Americans here and abroad, and we were able to provide the
objective, fact-based information that decision makers needed to
stimulate debate, change laws, and improve federal programs for the
betterment of the nation. For example, as the war in Iraq continued, we
examined how DOD supplied vehicles, body armor, and other materiel to
the troops in the field; contributed to the debate on military
compensation; and highlighted the need to improve health, vocational
rehabilitation, and employment services for seriously injured soldiers
transitioning from the battlefield to civilian life. We kept pace with
the Congress's information needs about ways to better protect America
from terrorism by issuing products and delivering testimonies that
addressed issues such as security gaps in the nation's passport
operations that threaten public safety and federal efforts needed to
improve the security of checked baggage at airports and cargo
containers coming through U.S. ports. We also explored the financial
crisis that weakened the airline industry and the impact of this
situation on the traveling public and airline employees' pensions. We
performed this work in accordance with our strategic plan for serving
the Congress, consistent with our professional standards, and guided by
our core values (see appendix 1). See table 2 for examples of how GAO
assisted the nation in fiscal year 2005.
TABLE 2.--EXAMPLES OF HOW GAO ASSISTED THE NATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal Description GAO provided information that helped to
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Provide timely, quality Improve the transition from active duty to civilian status for veterans with
service to the Congress serious war-related injuries
and the federal Address long-term health care financing pressures on state and local
government to address government budgets
current and emerging Identify challenges associated with transferring the Medicare appeals process
challenges to the well- from the Social Security Administration and HHS
being and financial Improve patient safety at Department of Veterans' Affairs hospitals
security of the American Improve the security of Social Security numbers
people Address the challenges of pension reform
Strengthen the security screening process for passengers and checked baggage
at the nation's airports
Improve the oversight of Federal Housing Administration single-family and
multifamily lenders
Improve the oversight of electricity markets by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Identify challenges associated with the Department of Energy's (DOE's)
nuclear facility designs
Monitor the growth in the digital television market
Analyze issues contributing to the declining financial condition of the
airline industry
2 Provide timely, quality Improve the management of funds for the global war on terrorism
service to the Congress Increase the security of cargo containers to prevent terrorist activity
and the federal Alert the Congress to issues affecting the DOD's major weapon systems
government to respond to Analyze funding options for a new federal foreign assistance program--the
changing security Millennium Challenge Account
threats and the Promote government efforts to address threats to the security of the nation's
challenges of global information systems
interdependence Strengthen the visa process as an antiterrorism tool
Improve management of the U.S. Coast Guard's Deepwater Program
Shape the debate on improving military pay and benefits
Strengthen the U.S. strategic export control system
Identify improvements needed to secure critical IT systems used by U.S.
financial markets
Report to the Congress on the 2005 base realignment and closures (BRAC)
defense transformation
3 Help transform the Increase the public's understanding of the federal government's long-term
federal government's fiscal challenges
role and how it does Implement governmentwide civil service reforms
business to meet 21st Oversee federal tax policy
century challenges Increase debts collected from criminals
Decrease improper payments made by the USDA Food Stamp Program and other
federal agencies
Manage multibillion dollar IT modernizations and investments at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Office of Personnel Management
Improve agencies' strategic purchasing practices
Examine changes in key areas of federal activity that could affect the
federal government's fiscal future
Enhance the knowledge base on comprehensive national indicators
Improve postal operations through reform legislation
4 Maximize the value of GAO Foster among other federal agencies GAO's innovative human capital practices,
by being a model federal such as broad pay bands; performance-based compensation; and workforce
agency and a world-class planning and staffing strategies, policies, and processes
professional services Share GAO's model business and management processes and other transformation-
organization related information with counterpart organizations in the United States and
abroad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.
outcomes of our work and the road ahead
During fiscal year 2005 we monitored our performance using 14
annual performance measures that capture the results of our work; the
assistance we provided to the Congress; and our ability to attract,
retain, develop, and lead a highly professional workforce (see table
3). For example, in fiscal year 2005 our work generated $39.6 billion
in financial benefits, primarily from actions agencies and the Congress
took in response to our recommendations. Of this amount, about $19
billion resulted from changes to laws or regulations, $12.8 billion
resulted from agency actions based on our recommendations to improve
services to the public, and $7.7 billion resulted from improvements to
core business processes. See figure 1 for examples of our fiscal year
2005 financial benefits.
TABLE 3.--AGENCYWIDE SUMMARY OF ANNUAL MEASURES AND TARGETS
[Dollars in billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Performance measures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Target
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results:
Financial benefits...... $26.4 $37.7 $35.4 $44.0 $39.6 $39.0 $40.0
Other benefits.......... $799 $906 $1,043 $1,197 $1,409 $1,050 $1,100
Past recommendations 79 79 82 83 85 80 80
implemented (percent)..
New products with 44 53 55 63 63 60 60
recommendations
(percent)..............
Client:
Testimonies............. 151 216 189 217 179 210 185
Timeliness (percent).... 95 96 97 97 97 98 98
People:
New hire rate (percent). N/A 96 98 98 94 97 97
Acceptance rate N/A 81 72 72 71 75 75
(percent)..............
Retention rate with 91 91 92 90 90 90 91
retirements (percent)..
Retention rate without 95 97 96 95 94 94 95
retirements (percent)..
Staff development N/A 71 67 70 72 74 75
(percent)..............
Staff utilization N/A 67 71 72 75 75 78
(percent)..............
Leadership (percent).... N/A 75 78 79 80 80 80
Organizational climate N/A 67 71 74 76 75 76
(percent)..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.
Note: N/A indicates the information is not available or the target is not applicable.
In fiscal year 2006, we will add two internal operations measures to our list of performance measures on which
we report. These measures will help us determine how well our internal operations (1) help employees get their
jobs done and (2) improve employees' quality of life in the workplace.
FIGURE 1.--GAO'S SELECTED MAJOR FINANCIAL BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2005
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced funding for a missile defense system.................. 4.7
In an April 2003 report, we stated that to successfully
develop an effective and suitable missile defense system,
the Missile Defense Agency must be willing to adopt
knowledge-based acquisition practices that have made other
developers successful. Our report acknowledged that the
agency's development strategy for the Kinetic Energy
Interceptor Program included knowledge-based practices, but
concluded that the agency had not implemented two important
practices: (1) using well-developed technologies during
system integration and (2) fully testing a system before
fielding it. In response, the Missile Defense Agency is
scaling back development of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor
Program until technologies are mature. Over a 5-year period--
from fiscal years 2005 through 2009--program funding will be
reduced by about $5.2 billion, which has a net present value
of about $4.7 billion.
Avoided higher costs associated with a nuclear waste disposal 4.5
process......................................................
In a June 2003 report, we recommended that DOE pursue
legislative clarification from the Congress because of a
legal challenge that threatened DOE's ability to proceed
with its less costly strategy for treating and disposing of
radioactive tank wastes with lower concentrations of
radioactivity. DOE estimated that pursuing a more expensive
treatment and disposal strategy suitable for wastes with
higher concentrations of radioactivity would increase waste
treatment disposal costs by $55 billion to $60 billion at
its Savannah River Site. The fiscal year 2005 National
Defense Authorization Act contained a provision that
clarified DOE's authority to follow its planned treatment
and disposal strategy, thus avoiding a more costly process.
We calculated that the net present value of the cost
avoidance for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 was about $4.5
billion.
Improved the Army's force structure........................... 3.4
In a report examining the Army's force structure, we
recommended that the Army establish mission criteria to
provide a firmer basis for its Strategic Reserve, Domestic
Support, and Homeland Defense force requirements. Such
criteria would help to ensure that the Army had the right
number and types of soldiers available for these purposes.
Rather than request additional end strength, the Army
reconfigured its existing force's structure. In April 2003,
DOD reported that the Army had included force structure
changes in its fiscal year 2004 budget, which supported
increased units for military police; military intelligence;
special forces; and chemical, civil affairs, and
psychological operations. Based on this action, the Army has
been able to rebalance its force structure to create needed
units with minimal increases in authorized end strength. The
amount shown represents the net present value of the force
structure changes over a 5-year period (fiscal years 2004
through 2008).
Reduced the cost of federally subsidized housing projects..... 2.7
We determined that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) had not developed the systems it needed to
track the status of unexpended balances in its project-based
Section 8 housing program and therefore could not use this
information to help manage the program and formulate budget
requests for it. As a result of our work, the Congress
required HUD to better enforce the legislative provisions
requiring the recapture of capital funds not being utilized
by public housing authorities. In fiscal year 2005, we
documented--using HUD data--that a financial benefit of
about $2.7 billion in current dollars resulted from HUD's
recapture of about $2.5 billion of fiscal year 2003 dollars.
Avoided costs associated with higher payment rates at skilled 2.0
nursing homes................................................
In 2002, we assessed the impact of a 16.6 percent increase
in Medicare's daily rate for skilled nursing facilities on
nurse staffing ratios. Our analysis showed that nurse
staffing ratios changed little from April 1, 2001, through
September 30, 2002--the period during which the rate
increase was in effect. In fiscal year 2003, the cost to the
federal government of reinstating the payment rate increase
was approximately $1 billion per year. Since we issued our
report, the Congress has considered reinstating the rate
increase, but it has chosen not to, largely on the basis of
our analysis. The net present value of the annual cost
avoidance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 is $2 billion.
Increased tax revenues........................................ 1.8
We reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) did
not have systems or procedures in place to allow it to
identify and actively pursue unpaid tax cases that may have
some collection potential. Based on our work, IRS has taken
action to better assess the potential for collecting unpaid
tax assessment cases and has used that information to better
target its collection efforts. Specifically, in 2004 IRS
began implementing a sophisticated modeling technology to
identify productive and less productive cases to ensure that
its resources are devoted to cases with a higher likelihood
of collection and to help prevent premature suspension of
collection efforts. IRS's analysis of the yield on
collection cases after employing this modeling in fiscal
year 2004 shows that this yield increased by about $1.8
billion (in current year dollars), or 8.4 percent from the
previous year (fiscal year 2003), without significant
staffing level increases.
Ensured continued investment in the General Services 1.3
Administration's (GSA) online purchasing system..............
As of 2003, GSA had spent $84 million to develop,
implement, and maintain Advantage, a system for ordering
products and services online. However, 5 years after the
system was launched, only 35 percent of all government-
contracted vendors participated in the program, and agencies
were largely using the system to compare pricing. To ensure
GSA's level of investment matched customer needs, we
recommended that the agency develop a business case for a
system such as Advantage, and in January 2005, GSA selected
a new business strategy that would significantly enhance the
system's capabilities to serve as a broker between buyers
and suppliers and provide agencies with an automated tool
for formulating acquisition requirements and developing
requests for quotes. GSA projects over $1.5 billion in
financial benefits to result from electronic transactions,
spend analysis (analysis of expenditures that shows how
money is spent on goods and services), a searchable
procurement data repository, and competitive pricing. This
financial benefit has a net present value of just over $1.3
billion.
Reduced Navy and Air Force appropriations..................... 1.3
DOD policy requires the Defense Working Capital Fund to
maintain cash levels to cover 7 to 10 days of operational
cash and 6 months of capital asset disbursements. Our
analysis showed that the January 2004 reported actual cash
balance for the Air Force Working Capital Fund exceeded the
10-day cash requirement by about $1.5 billion, and the
Navy's Working Capital Fund reported actual cash balance
exceeded the budgeted cash balance by $659 million and $408
million at the end of fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
respectively. The Congress reduced the Navy and Air Force
fiscal year 2005 Operation and Maintenance appropriations by
just under $1.3 billion due to excessive cash amounts.
Eliminated the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 1.1
(NASA) Prometheus 1 project..................................
We issued a report questioning whether NASA had
established the initial justification for its investment in
the Prometheus 1 project and how the agency planned to
ensure that critical nuclear power and propulsion system
technologies were sufficiently developed to support deep
space probes like the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. We also
reported that the approved Prometheus 1 funding profile was
inadequate to support the planned mission--a launch to
Jupiter's Icy Moons in 2015. NASA has subsequently deferred
the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission indefinitely, reducing
the agency's funding needs by about $1.22 billion through
fiscal year 2009; the net present value of this reduction is
over $1.1 billion.
Reduced the budget request for a new foreign assistance 1.0
program......................................................
In March and June 2004, we provided the Congress with
information to help it assess the President's $2.5 billion
fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Millennium Challenge
Account--a new foreign assistance program intended to
provide economic assistance to countries that demonstrate a
commitment to ruling justly, investing in people, and
encouraging economic freedom. Our work provided the Congress
with a framework for identifying relationships and trade-
offs between funding levels, compact length, and number of
compacts (i.e., agreements). Our analysis indicated that by
reducing assistance target levels, the length of compacts or
both with participating countries, the program could operate
at a lower funding level. We also estimated the effect of
funding compacts partly from future appropriations. Our work
facilitated the Congress's decision to reduce the
appropriation for the Millennium Challenge Account in fiscal
year 2005 to $1.5 billion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the benefits that result from our work cannot be measured
in dollar terms. During fiscal year 2005, we recorded a total of 1,409
other benefits. For instance, we documented 75 instances where
information we provided to the Congress resulted in statutory or
regulatory changes, 595 instances where federal agencies improved
services to the public, and 739 instances where agencies improved core
business processes or governmentwide reforms were advanced. These
actions spanned the full spectrum of national issues, from ensuring the
safety of commercial airline passengers to identifying abusive tax
shelters. See figure 2 for additional examples of GAO's other benefits
in fiscal year 2005.
FIGURE 2.--GAO'S SELECTED OTHER (NONFINANCIAL) BENEFITS REPORTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO CHANGE
LAWS
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Our work is reflected in this law in different ways. In our May 2004
Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. testimony on the use of biometrics for aviation security, we reported on
108-458). the need to identify how biometrics will be used to improve aviation
security prior to making a decision to design, develop, and implement
biometrics. Using information from our statement, the House introduced a
bill on July 22, 2004, directing the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to establish system requirements and performance
standards for using biometrics, and establish processes to (1) prevent
individuals from using assumed identities to enroll in a biometric system
and (2) resolve errors. These provisions were later included in an
overall aviation security bill and were eventually included in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, enacted in
December 2004.
We conducted a body of work assessing the physical screening of airport
passengers and their checked baggage. We found that the installation of
systems that are in line with airport baggage conveyor systems may result
in financial benefits, according to TSA estimates for nine airports. We
also found that the effectiveness of the advance passenger screening
under the process known as Secure Flight was not certain. TSA agreed to
take corrective actions in these areas, and the Congress required TSA in
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act to prepare a plan
and guidelines for installing in-line baggage screening systems, and
enacted measures to promote Secure Flight's development and
implementation.
Real ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109- We reported on the verification of identity documents for drivers'
13). licenses, noting that visual inspection of key documents lent itself to
possible identity fraud. To demonstrate this, our investigators were able
to obtain licenses in two states using counterfeit documents and the
Social Security numbers of deceased persons. The Congress established
federal identification standards for state drivers' licenses and other
such documents and mandated third-party verification of identity
documents presented to apply for a driver's license.
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense We assisted the Congress in crafting major improvements to a program
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year intended to compensate individuals who worked in DOE facilities and
2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-375). developed illnesses related to radiation and hazardous materials
exposure. In a 2004 report, we identified features of the originally
enacted program that would likely lead to inconsistent benefit outcomes
for claimants, in part because the program depended on the varying state
workers compensation systems to provide some benefits. We also presented
several options for improving the consistency of benefit outcomes and a
framework for assessing these options. When the Congress enacted the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,
it revamped this energy employees' benefit program. Among other changes,
this law federalized the payment of worker compensation benefits for
eligible energy contractor employees and provided a schedule of uniform
benefit payments.
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Our work over the past several years has helped the Congress to establish
Act (Pub. L. No. 108-447). and assess the impacts of the recreational fee demonstration program.
Under this trial program, the Congress authorized the National Park
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
and the Forest Service to charge fees to visitors to, among other things,
reduce the maintenance backlog at federal parks and historic places and
protect these lands from visitor impacts. Since the program's inception
in 1996, we have identified issues that needed to be addressed to improve
the program's effectiveness that included providing (1) a more permanent
source of funds to enhance stability, since the current program had to be
reauthorized every 2 years; (2) the participating agencies with greater
flexibility in how and where they apply fee revenues; and (3)
improvements in interagency coordination in the collection and use of
revenue fees to better serve visitors by making the payment of fees more
convenient and equitable and reducing visitor confusion about similar or
multiple fees being charged at nearby or adjacent federal recreational
sites. As a result of this body of work, the Congress addressed these
issues by passing the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in
December 2004. This act permits federal land management agencies to
continue charging fees at campgrounds, rental cabins, high-impact
recreation areas, and day-use sites that have certain facilities. The act
also provides for a nationally consistent interagency program, more on-
the-ground improvements at recreation sites across the nation, enhanced
visitor services, a new national pass for use across interagency federal
recreation sites and services, and public involvement in the program.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Our work is reflected in this law in different ways. At the time of our
2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-447). August 2003 report, the original 1999 expiration date for the franchise
fund pilots operating at the Departments of Commerce, Veterans Affairs,
Health and Human Services, the Interior, and the Treasury and at the
Environmental Protection Agency had been extended three times. These
franchise funds, authorized by the Government Management Reform Act of
1994, are part of a group of 34 intragovernmental revolving funds that
were created to provide common administrative support services required
by many federal agencies. For example, the Commerce Franchise Fund's
business line provides IT infrastructure support services to the agency.
We concluded that increasing the period of authorization would help ease
concerns of current and potential clients about franchise fund stability
and might allow franchise funds to add new business lines, and we
suggested that the authorizations be extended for longer periods. The
Congress provided permanent authority to the Treasury franchise fund in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, passed on December 8, 2004.
In 2003, we reported that most agencies could not retain the proceeds from
the sale of unneeded property and this acted as a disincentive to
disposing of unneeded property. We stated in our high-risk report on
federal real property that it may make sense to permit agencies to retain
proceeds for reinvestment in real property where a need exists.
Subsequently, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, the Congress
authorized the Administrator of GSA to retain the net proceeds from the
conveyance of real and related personal property. These proceeds are to
be deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund and are to be used as
authorized for GSA's real property capital needs.
In December 2003, we reported that 184 out of 213 Alaska Native villages
are affected, to some extent, by flooding and erosion. However, these
villages often have difficulty qualifying for federal assistance to
combat their flooding and erosion problems. In our report, we recommended
that the Denali Commission adopt a policy to guide investment decisions
and project designs in villages affected by flooding and erosion. In this
legislation, the Congress provided the Secretary of the Army with the
authority to carry out ``structural and non-structural projects for storm
damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial
damage in Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and
construction of replacement facilities.''
Consolidated Appropriations Act, To improve the federal government's ability to collect billions of dollars
2005 (Pub. L. No. 108-447). of outstanding criminal debt, we recommended in a 2001 report, that the
Department of Justice work with other agencies involved in criminal debt
collection, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the
Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and OMB, to develop a strategic
plan that would improve interagency processes and coordination with
regard to criminal debt collection activities. The conference report that
accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, directed the
Attorney General to assemble an interagency task force for the purposes
of better managing, accounting for, reporting, and collecting criminal
debt.
OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
IMPROVE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC
Encouraged improvements in the Our report found that the Department of Education's (Education) system for
process for ensuring states' resolving noncompliance with the Individuals with Disabilities in
compliance with education laws for Education Act is protracted. We found that resolution of noncompliance
the disabled. cases often takes several years, in part because Education took a year on
average from the time it identified noncompliance to issue a report
citing the noncompliance. We therefore recommended that Education improve
its system of resolving noncompliance by shortening the amount of time it
takes to issue a report of noncompliance and by tracking changes in
response times under the new monitoring process. In response to our
recommendation, Education has instituted an improved process for managing
and tracking the various phases of the monitoring process, which includes
the creation of a database to facilitate this tracking. This new tracking
system will enable Education to better monitor the status of existing
noncompliance, and thus enable the department to take appropriate action
when states fail to come into compliance in a timely manner.
Identified a weakness in Medicare's In 2004, we found that the 24-hour 1-800-MEDICARE help line, operated by
telephone assistance service. the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), did not answer 10
percent of the calls we placed to test its accuracy, often because it
automatically transferred some calls to claims administration contractors
that were not open for business at the time of the call. This call
transfer process prohibited callers from accessing information during
nonbusiness hours, even though 1-800-MEDICARE operates 24 hours a day. As
a result, we recommended that CMS revise the routing procedures of 1-800-
MEDICARE to ensure that calls are not transferred or referred to claims
administration contractors' help lines during nonbusiness hours. In
response, CMS finished converting its call routing procedures. As a
result, calls placed after normal business hours will be routed to the
main 1-800-MEDICARE help line for assistance.
Highlighted the need for increased United States Department of Agriculture scientists at the Plum Island
security at a federal disease Animal Disease Center research contagious animal diseases that have been
research facility. found in other countries. The mission of the facility, now administered
by DHS, is to develop strategies for protecting the nation's animal
industries and exports from these foreign animal diseases. In our
September 2003 report, Combating Bioterrorism: Actions Needed to Improve
Security at Plum Island Animal Disease Center, we made several
recommendations to improve security at the facility and reduce
vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Among other things, we recommended
that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, enhance incident response capability by
increasing the size of the guard force. DHS has informed us that this has
been completed. According to the Director of Plum Island, DHS has more
than doubled the number of guards assigned on each shift on Plum Island.
OTHER BENEFITS THAT HELPED TO
PROMOTE SOUND AGENCY AND
GOVERNMENTWIDE MANAGEMENT
Recommended a process to increase DOD spending on service contracts approaches $100 billion annually, but
the efficiency of DOD procurements. DOD's management of services procurement is inefficient and ineffective
and the dollars are not always well spent. Many private companies have
changed management practices based on analyzing spending patterns and
coordinating procurement efforts in order to achieve major savings. We
recommended that DOD adopt the effective spend analysis processes used by
these leading companies and use technology to automate spend analysis to
make it repeatable. In response, DOD is developing new technology to do
that. According to DOD and contractor project managers, one phase of the
project was completed in December 2004. In March 2005, DOD approved a
business case analysis to seek follow-on funding for developing a DOD-
wide spend analysis system.
Improved the Air Force's oversight As part of our audit of Air Force purchase card controls, we identified
of purchase card transactions. transactions that Air Force officials acknowledged to be fraudulent as
well as potentially fraudulent transactions that the Air Force had not
identified. To improve Air Force oversight of purchase card activity and
facilitate the identification of systemic weaknesses and deficiencies in
existing internal control and the development of additional control
activities, we recommended that the Air Force establish an agencywide
database of known purchase card fraud cases. In lieu of establishing a
separate agencywide database, during fiscal year 2003, the Air Force
Office of Special Investigations initiated quarterly reporting on its
purchase card investigations to the DOD IG for macro-level analysis of
systemic weaknesses in the program. Our ongoing collaboration with the
DOD IG on DOD's purchase card program confirmed that the Air Force's
Office of Special Investigations is working effectively with DOD's IG on
data-mining techniques for detection of potentially improper and
fraudulent purchase card transactions. As a result of our work, the Air
Force has taken action to reduce the financial risk associated with
undetected fraud and abuse in its purchase card program.
Encouraged the Census Bureau to For the 2000 Census, the United States Census Bureau (Bureau) printed
produce training materials in other material used to train census workers only in English, except in Puerto
languages. Rico where training materials were available in Spanish. However, to
better prepare census workers--some of whom speak Spanish as their first
language--to locate migrant farm workers and other hard-to-count groups,
we recommended that the Bureau consider providing training materials in
languages other than English to targeted areas. In response to our
recommendation, the Bureau is researching foreign-language data
collection methods as part of its preparations for the 2006 Census test
and, more generally, plans to identify areas and operations that will
require in-language training materials for areas with very large, new
migrant populations where it will not be possible to hire bilinguals.
Moreover, the Bureau's June 2005 request for proposals for a Field Data
Collection Automation System includes a requirement for the contractor to
provide training applications and materials in English and Spanish for
the handheld computers enumerators are to use to count nonrespondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO.
One way we measure our effect on improving the government's
accountability, operations, and services is by tracking the percentage
of recommendations that we made 4 years ago that have since been
implemented. At the end of fiscal year 2005, 85 percent of the
recommendations we made in fiscal year 2001 had been implemented,
primarily by executive branch agencies. Putting these recommendations
into practice will generate tangible benefits for the nation over many
years.
During fiscal year 2005, experts from our staff testified at 179
congressional hearings covering a wide range of complex issues (see
table 4). For example, our senior executives testified on improving the
security of nuclear material, federal oversight of mutual funds, and
the management and control of DOD's excess property. Over 70 of our
testimonies were related to high-risk areas and programs (see table 5).
Table 4.--Selected Testimony Issues, Fiscal Year 2005
Goal 1: Address Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial Security of
the American People
Head Start grants management
Retirement options for seniors
Postal service reform legislation
Wildland fire management
National air traffic system
Providing services to seriously injured veterans
Endangered Species Act
Preparing for influenza pandemic
Long-term health care costs and government budgets
Veterans' disability claims
Medicaid financing issues
Amtrak's Acela train
Rural housing service
Federal oversight of the E-rate program
Overseeing the U.S. food supply
Energy demand in the 21st century
Social Security reform
Meeting the future demand for energy in the United States
Protecting nuclear material handled at science and environmental sites
Federal real property
Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of
Globalization
Army's modular forces
Acquisition challenges facing the Navy's DD(X) destroyer program
Oil for Food program
Managing violations of restricted air space
Protecting U.S. officials overseas from terrorist attacks
Implementing laws that protect the security of information
U.S. passport fraud
Tactical aircraft modernization
Unmanned aerial vehicles
Federal oversight of mutual funds to ensure investor security
DOD's business transformation
DOD's national security personnel system
Cargo security strategies
DOD security clearances
Condition of Coast Guard aircraft and ships used in deep waters
Port security
Transportation security issues
Acquisition challenges facing the Army's future combat systems
Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government's Role and How it Does
Business
Long-term fiscal issues affecting the federal government
Air Force procurement protests
Space shuttle workforce issues
Management and control of DOD's excess property
High-risk federal programs
Improper Payments Information Act
Gaps in military pay and benefits
Human capital transformation at DHS
Reducing the tax gap
Pricing federal multiple award contracts
Army National Guard travel reimbursement issues
Agencies' continuity of operations plans
21st century challenges for the federal government
Preparing for emergencies at federal agencies
U.S. government financial statements
Performance budgeting
Space acquisitions and investment planning
DHS's Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
gao's high-risk program
Issued to coincide with the start of each new Congress, our high-
risk update, first used in 1993, has helped Members of the Congress who
are responsible for oversight and executive branch officials who are
accountable for performance. Our high-risk program focuses on major
government programs and operations that need urgent attention or
transformation to ensure that our government functions in the most
economical, efficient, and effective manner possible. Overall, our
high-risk program has served to identify and help resolve a range of
serious weaknesses that involve substantial resources and provide
critical services to the public. Table 5 details our 2005 high-risk
list.
TABLE 5.--GAO'S 2005 HIGH-RISK LIST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
2005 high-risk area designated
high risk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing challenges in broad-based transformations:
Strategic Human Capital Management \1\.............. 2001
U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long- 2001
Term Outlook \1\...................................
Managing Federal Real Property \1\.................. 2003
Protecting the Federal Government's Information 1997
Systems and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures..
Implementing and Transforming the Department of 2003
Homeland Security..................................
Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information- 2005
Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Homeland Security....
DOD Approach to Business Transformation \1\......... 2005
DOD Business Systems Modernization.................. 1995
DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program............ 2005
DOD Support Infrastructure Management............... 1997
DOD Financial Management............................ 1995
DOD Supply Chain Management (formerly Inventory 1990
Management)........................................
DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition...................... 1990
Managing federal contracting more effectively:
DOD Contract Management............................. 1992
DOE Contract Management............................. 1990
NASA Contract Management............................ 1990
Management of Interagency Contracting............... 2005
Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of tax law
administration:
Enforcement of Tax Laws \1\ \2\..................... 1990
IRS Business Systems Modernization \3\.............. 1995
Modernizing and safeguarding insurance and benefit
programs:
Modernizing Federal Disability Programs \1\......... 2003
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer 2003
Insurance Program \1\..............................
Medicare Program \1\................................ 1990
Medicaid Program \1\................................ 2003
HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental 1994
Housing Assistance Programs........................
Other: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic 1995
Control Modernization..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions by
the executive branch, in order to effectively address this high-risk
area.
\2\ Two high-risk areas--collection of unpaid taxes and earned income
credit noncompliance--have been consolidated to make this area.
\3\ The IRS financial management high-risk area has been incorporated in
this high-risk area.
Source: GAO.
concluding remarks
We are grateful for the Congress's continued support of our joint
effort to improve government and for providing the resources that allow
us to be a world-class professional services organization. We are proud
of the positive impact we have been able to affect in government over
the past year and believe an investment in GAO will continue to yield
substantial returns for the Congress and the American people. Our
nation will continue to face significant challenges in the years ahead.
GAO's expertise and involvement in virtually every facet of government
positions us to provide the Congress with the timely, objective, and
reliable information it needs to discharge its constitutional
responsibilities.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions the Members of the Committee may have.
appendix i.--serving the congress--gao's strategic plan framework
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
COST FOR 50 ADDITIONAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS
Senator Allard. Well thank you for your testimony. Total,
you're going to have about a $25 million request, which is 5
percent over fiscal year 2006 and we'll look very closely at
your request. We've got 50 new employees that are coming on.
You have about 3,217 employees now, according to the facts that
I have here. Now, we've tried to break that out on the employee
costs at $7.5 million. So I was just doing some quick math
here. That's $150,000 per employee. I'm kind of curious. That's
not salary. I'm sure there's benefits figured in there, and
insurance, and other things, retirement plan, everything else.
So I just want to have you verify how it is, that you come up
with $150,000.
Mr. Walker. Sure.
Let me provide an overview, and I'm going to turn to
Sallyanne Harper to provide some additional information, Mr.
Chairman, with your indulgence.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Walker. The compensation adjustments are for several
things. Number one, to bring us up to our full compliment of
3,217. We've been authorized that for a full FTE level, but we
haven't been there in several years. We're now on track to do
that and, therefore, to the extent that we do that, we're going
to need some money to be able to maintain that next year.
Second, for pay increases. Our policy is, if you're
performing at meets expectation or better on all applicable
competencies and you're paid within applicable competitive
compensation ranges, you're going to get some across-the-board
pay adjustment. In addition to that, you're going to get an
additional adjustment based on how you do relative to your
peers.
Senator Allard. So the $7.5 million not only includes the
new 50 employees, but also there is some pay increase
adjustments figured in.
Mr. Walker. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Okay. So the $150,000 is entirely too
generous.
Mr. Walker. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. And then, we have
the 50 employees, not all of which are going to be hired on day
one. They'll be hired throughout the year.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Walker. And depending upon what you finally give us for
a budget, it will determine how many we can hire, if we can
hire them, and when we can hire them.
CALCULATING THE TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT
But you raise an excellent point, which I would like to
reinforce. And that is, we're trying to get our employees to
understand more about the concept of total compensation, which
you and I have talked about before. It's not just how much you
pay in cash, in the form of salary, bonuses, incentive awards,
and things of that nature, but it's also how much you receive
in the form of healthcare, pension, and other benefits. In our
budget, the average load factor that we have to bare directly
is about 24 percent, I believe.
However, when you consider the fact that some costs are
borne by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), with regard
to things like the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) cost,
et cetera, the actual load factor is about 31 percent. So for
every $1 we pay somebody, they receive compensation of $1.31
because of other benefits that ultimately, the taxpayers have
to pay.
But I would ask Sallyanne if she's got anything she wants
to add on this.
Ms. Harper. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that----
Senator Allard. So, I just want to clarify, if I might,
before we move to the last statement. So, if you pay them a $1,
there's one-third of that----
Mr. Walker. Added----
Senator Allard [continuing]. Added on. It would add on as
additional benefits. So the $1 that you talk about in actual
cash, becomes $1.32 because of the benefits of the employee.
Mr. Walker. Two points, Mr. Chairman. For our budget, which
is before you, the $1 becomes $1.24. For our financial
statements, which is important, which is ultimately what the
taxpayers have to bear, $1 becomes $1.31.
Senator Allard. I see. Okay.
Ms. Harper. The only addition I would make, Mr. Chairman,
is that we do disproportionately hire into the analyst core and
that is a higher salary rate in general, than other portions of
our budget. So the evaluators, the analysts, and particularly
the specialists are going to have a higher initial compensation
rate than people in the administrative and professional
services community.
Mr. Walker. It's important, Mr. Chairman, to note for the
record, that last year, over 90 percent of the people that we
hired as auditors, investigators, analysts, evaluators, and
attorneys had advanced degrees from top schools in the country.
We are hiring some of the Nation's best and brightest, and it's
very, very important that we be able to compensate them
appropriately, because we are only as good as our people.
Senator Allard. Particularly in what you're trying to
accomplish, that's your personnel incentive.
Mr. Walker. Eighty percent of our budget is personnel cost.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Walker. And so, if we don't get adequately funded, it
starts cutting into the bone pretty quickly.
EARLY RETIREMENTS
Senator Allard. Let me move on to early retirements. Would
you please explain your criteria for approving voluntary early
retirement applications and ensuring that areas where there is
a supply and demand imbalance or a recruiting challenge, are
not negatively impacted?
Mr. Walker. Well thank you for the question and let me also
thank you and your colleagues for giving us the legislative
authority that we needed to make more intelligent decisions in
this area.
Basically, several years ago, we sought and the Congress
gave us authority to be able to target early retirement offers
to a greater extent, than previously was the case; you also
gave us the authority to say no. Basically, we're trying to use
early retirement offers to help realign GAO's workforce, to be
able to reallocate resources from areas where we have more
supply than demand, to areas where we have more demand than
supply. We're also trying to use it to try to help with
succession planning. Because as you probably recall, Mr.
Chairman, before I came to GAO, we had a hiring freeze for
about 5 years. We were downsized 40 percent. And so, we had a
real gap in our development pipeline and a very high and
increasing percentage of people that were going to be eligible
for retirement.
The bottom line is anybody can come forward and seek early
retirement. But whether or not they're going to be approved, is
based upon what we need from a workforce standpoint to meet our
client demands, and we also consider the performance of the
individual. We're not looking to lose people in areas where we
have supply and demand imbalances and ones that are top
performers. We're looking to try to use this as a strategic
workforce realignment tool.
Most people that come forward are approved, but not all.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S MARKET-BASED PAY SYSTEM
Senator Allard. Okay. Now let's go to your GAO pay system.
You've gone into it in some detail already. What are the major
objectives of your market-based pay system and how would you
assess your success in meeting those objectives?
Mr. Walker. There are a number of objectives, Mr. Chairman.
Number one, the overall objective is that we want to be able to
attract, retain, motivate, and reward a top flight workforce.
Compensation is one element to do that, but it's only one. As
you know, Mr. Chairman, those of us--yourself, myself, all of
us here included, don't come into Government to maximize our
net worth. We come into Government to maximize our abilities
and to make a difference. And it's not just about the money,
it's also about the difference that you can make in the lives
of others.
But we need to be competitive with those organizations that
we actually compete for talent. Whether that be the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), whether that be the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), whether that be the think tanks, or
whether that be the major accounting firms, whom we actually
compete with for talent, based upon hiring and to whom we lose
people. So we wanted to make sure that we achieve that
objective. We also wanted to make sure that we were targeting
our limited resources. Because, we have limited resources.
Therefore, we are targeting money to where the market requires
it and where performance supports it. We want to target our
dollars based on skills, knowledge, and performance.
And so my view is, by conducting our first ever competitive
compensation study in the history of GAO, which was created in
1921, we are now in a much better position to provide
reasonable assurance that we are paying competitively and
allocating our dollars more intelligently. I think that's not
only in our interest, it's in the Congress' and the country's
interest.
Senator Allard. Yes. I applaud you for those efforts in
that area. They're not unique in the private sector, but
certainly unique on the Government's sector.
CHANGES TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S PAY SYSTEM IN THE
PAST YEAR
Now, what changes in the pay system have occurred in the
last year? Anything specific that you want to highlight for us?
Mr. Walker. The biggest changes that have occurred in the
last year, and when I say the last year, I'm including this
current fiscal year.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Walker. We now have implemented the new market-based
compensation ranges. That's number one. Number two, we have
also implemented a new system for determining annual pay
adjustments for all of our personnel. And number three, the
effects of the restructuring that I mentioned before, the so-
called Band II level personnel, that has taken place. Let me
briefly touch on that, as you know, under the old system of
compensation in Government, everybody had the right to be paid
at the pay cap, irrespective of their performance. It was an
entitlement. It wasn't a matter of if somebody was going to
make the pay cap, it was only a matter of when they were going
to make the pay cap. Because until we received an exemption
from the Congress, we had to give the across-the-board pay
adjustment that the executive branch had to give every year to
all employees, irrespective of their performance. And believe
it or not, on the executive branch side, even unacceptable
performers are by law, entitled to that adjustment, which I
would respectfully suggest Congress may want to reconsider.
Now, there's not very many GAO employees in that category,
okay? But intellectually it makes no sense.
So we have implemented new competitive compensation ranges.
There were pluses and minuses to that. There were some of our
occupations and some levels, where we've raised our pay ranges,
both the cap as well as the minimum, are subject to statutory
limits. As you know, we can't pay what we call a Band III,
which is an assistant director, more than a GS-15, step 10
level. And so, that's a constraint.
But below that, it's market based and everybody has the
opportunity to make the pay cap, but not necessarily the right.
For the higher levels you have to perform in excess of certain
levels in order to be in top end of the pay range. The reason
is, because there is an overlap with the next level of
responsibility. Our philosophy is that you can justify paying
people at a lower level, who are really strong performers as
much as people as the next level, but you can't justify paying
below average performers, at a lower level of responsibility,
more money than somebody at the next level, who might be a
higher performer would be paid.
Senator Allard. Yes.
BAND II RESTRUCTURING
Mr. Walker. Now, the most challenging aspect of this, Mr.
Chairman, has to do with this Band II restructuring. And I'll
give you a few stats to bring it to life. We had 1,238 Band
II's when we started this process. That's out of about 3,200
employees. So you can see, that's the largest component of our
workforce. When we received the results of the competitive
compensation study, we had to make the decision on which one of
those 1,238 should be put in the higher pay range, which gives
them a chance to make up to $10,000 more, and which ones should
not. In some cases, individuals may be making more than they
should be making, based upon the market ranges. We had an
extensive process that resulted in everybody being able to
apply. Of the 1,238, 794 applied, 757 were deemed eligible, 409
were initially placed into the higher Band IIB range. Seventy-
eight of the ones who were not originally placed, appealed
directly to me. I placed 19 of the 78 into Band IIB. In
addition, five, who didn't even appeal to me, were placed into
Band IIB because I modified the relative performance criteria.
Therefore, some individuals benefited from that change, even
through they did not appeal.
So in summary, 433 or 35 percent of all our Band II's, were
placed in the higher pay range. There are 236 people who, when
we made the decisions based upon their roles, responsibility,
relative performance, and potential, did not justify being
placed into the higher pay range, but were already getting paid
in the higher pay range. So they were making in excess of
competitive compensation levels. For those people, we did not
cut anybody's pay, because they played by the rules. It
wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be fair.
At the same time, if they were already paid in excess of
competitive compensation levels, we didn't give them the
automatic across-the-board adjustments because they were
already paid in excess of competition compensation levels. But
we did give them the right to make additional pay increases,
based on their performance. And a vast majority did get some
pay increase even if they didn't get the across-the-board
adjustment. They will, if they end up getting moved to the next
level, or as pay ranges change over time. So that's where we
are. And I apologize, that took a little bit of time, but it's
a fairly complicated matter.
EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF NEW PAY SYSTEM
Senator Allard. Okay. I want to follow up a little more on
that. What is the morale, after you've implemented that system,
among the employees?
Mr. Walker. We do an annual confidential electronic
employee feedback survey, which we'll do in July and that will
give us more concrete information on morale. I will give you my
opinion, based upon extensive interaction with our employees,
talking to our managing directors, talking to our Employee
Advisory Council, meeting with our employees, and answering
their questions.
My view is that there is no easy way to tell somebody that
their pay is in excess of competitive compensation levels.
There's no easy way to tell somebody that you are not going to
continue to receive across-the-board adjustments that you've
been receiving year, after year, after year. All right. And so
my view is that there is a significant percentage of those
individuals who were not placed into the higher pay range, that
are disappointed, and I'm sure that that's had some impact on
their ``morale.''
At the same point in time, we've taken several steps to try
to mitigate any adverse morale impact. First, rather than only
allowing for competitive placements from the so-called lower
IIA pay range to the higher IIB pay range, once a year, we're
going to have a second competitive placement process that will
be effective near the end of June. We've erred on the side of
generosity in allocating the number of competiting positions,
so that more people will have an opportunity to make it. We're
going to do another competitive process next January. So
basically, that means within a 12-month period of time, we will
have had three placement cycles, and then we'll move to an
annual cycle after that.
My view is that while a significant percentage of the
people who did not get placed into IIB and my understanding is
that there were 345 people out of 3,200 roughly, who did not
receive an across-the-board increase, because of this factor or
because they were otherwise paid in excess competitive
compensation levels.
Obviously, a significant percentage of those people aren't
happy with the result. But that's a subset of our workforce.
That's only about 11 percent of our workforce. I feel confident
that not only was it the right thing to do, but it was
necessary to do especially given tight budgets.
The other thing that we did to try to ease the pain which,
as I said before, was not to cut anybody's pay. In addition we
told every Band II employee who was onboard in January, that
they would have the opportunity to earn up to what they
could've earned under the old system, which in Washington, is
almost $119,000 a year in cash compensation only, with benefits
added on top of that. They will have that opportunity to earn
that but at a slower rate than they could have under the old
system. So we're preserving their ability to make what they
could have under the old system at a slower rate, but we're
providing them an opportunity to make more money if their
skills, knowledge, roles, responsibility, and performance
justify. Over the long term, this will clearly be a plus. In
the short term, sometimes you have to have short-term pain to
get long-term gain. And that's where we're at.
Senator Allard. Well, we had a communication from one
employee here, who felt that somehow or the other, he'd been
promised that he was automatically going to get this annual
increase and this particular year, it would have been a 2.6-
percent increase. Do you have any response to that?
Mr. Walker. Well without knowing the facts, I can say this,
I never committed, nor would I ever commit to pay an across-
the-board pay increase to an individual who's paid in excess of
competitive compensation levels. I never committed to that, nor
would I commit to that.
POTENTIAL FOR GOVERNMENT-WIDE USE OF MARKET-BASED PAY
Senator Allard. Okay. Would you recommend this pay system
be used Government-wide, at this point in time?
Mr. Walker. I believe there are several aspects of what
we've done, that have potential merit for broad-based
application throughout Government. Although each workforce is
different, and therefore you need to make some changes. For
example, I believe that individuals who perform at a meets
expectation level or better, who are paid within competitive
compensation ranges, should, at a minimum, receive some pay
adjustment, based upon how the pay ranges change each year.
In addition to that, I believe that any additional pay
adjustment that people receive should be based on how they
perform relative to their peer group. So that means, if you do
like we do, where we set the bar high on expected performance
and if you hit that bar for meets expectations, you're going to
get something. But how much extra you're going to get, depends
upon how you compare to your peer group, with the top
performers getting more money than people who are good
performers, but not top performers.
I think that framework has a great deal of intellectual
merit, and when I've gone around speaking to executives and
others at other agencies, they have found that it is a possible
bridge from a system where 85 percent of the pay was on auto
pilot and 15 percent was merit based, to one where everything
relates to merit, but you're going to get something, as long as
you're a solid performer. But how much more you'll get, depends
upon how you do relative to your peers.
LESSONS LEARNED IN IMPLEMENTING MARKET-BASED PAY
The other thing that I think makes sense is you've got to
do market-based compensation studies. Most agencies in
Government have never done that. When you end up going to broad
banding, you really need to make sure you make solid decisions
on how many bands you set up, based upon roles and
responsibilities. We made two mistakes in 1989. Hindsight is
always 20/20.
Senator Allard. Well, you learn.
Mr. Walker. Yes. We made mistakes in 1989. Number one, we
combined two GS levels into one pay band that we shouldn't
have, because they were different roles of responsibility. That
caused us to have to do this Band II restructuring, because it
was clear that we had people with different roles and
responsibilities. Second, the agency assumed that the GS pay
ranges were reflective of the market.
Now they may or may not have been in 1989, but they're
surely not today. So when agencies are moving forward, they
have to be careful on how many pay bands they set up, based
upon meaningful differences in roles and responsibilities.
Then, they need to conduct competitive compensation studies to
decide what the pay ranges ought to be for those bands.
The last thing that I would say that's relevant, is that
it's okay to have overlaps in pay ranges. It's okay from
somebody in a lower level to have the opportunity to make as
much or more than the lower end of the pay range at the next
level. But in my view, the only people that you can justify
doing that for, are very strong performers. That shouldn't be
an entitlement. Because otherwise, you don't get equal pay for
work of equal value, over time. And that's one of our
objectives too, though I didn't mention it before, that I think
is an important principle.
STAFFING UP TO REDUCE BACKLOGS
Senator Allard. Last year, you talked about your single
biggest backlog was in the area of healthcare. Have you fully
staffed that area, now?
Mr. Walker. I would ask Gene Dodaro to look at some data.
We clearly still have a backlog in the healthcare area. But I
would footnote before Gene gets into the area, the backlog
we're going to talk to you about, is engagements that we've
accepted. And one has to use a note of caution, because there
could be demand on the Hill that we haven't received yet and
have not accepted yet. In some cases, people don't send us
things because they already know that we have a backlog. So
with that footnote, I would ask Gene to give you the backlog
statistics.
Senator Allard. Gene.
Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, we've begun addressing the
backlog issue in healthcare and have made a little progress,
but not much. Basically what's occurring there, because of
large growth in healthcare expenditures and the interest in
healthcare, particularly with the addition of the prescription
drug benefit in Medicare part D, the requests and mandates from
Congress just keep coming in at a fast pace. And there's also
more interest now in how FDA handles drug safety issues.
There's more interest in bioterrorism concerns and public
health preparedness and readiness. So the range of issues just
keeps growing, both in the Medicare program, as well as the
Medicaid program, in public health, and in the regulatory
structure. So we don't believe we can make much more progress
unless we add additional people.
We've also reinforced a process that we've had in place for
a number of years now, to look at potential mandates. When
Congress introduces a bill, there's often a requirement for a
GAO study in there and so, we try to talk to the people once
the bills are introduced. If it's something that may not fall
within our scope of our responsibility, or be something that
we've already addressed we try to deal with it.
The other big backlog area has been in homeland security.
And of course following September 11, 2001, a lot of concerns
about the areas that the Department of Homeland Security is
addressing. And then, came Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, et
cetera. And a lot of concern has, as everybody knows, emerged
about the Federal Government's response in that area. And so
that has occurred in addition to the continuing concerns about
air transportation, railroad security, port security, and all
the other issues that have been addressed. So that's been
layered on top and is causing an additional backlog in that
area, as well.
Ms. Harper. Mr. Chairman, to address the second----
Senator Allard. Ms. Harper.
Ms. Harper [continuing]. Part of your question, healthcare
is on track to be fully staffed. Their hiring is going very
well this year, so their staff should be fully onboard as we
come toward the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Walker. And the third area, Mr. Chairman, where there's
a big backlog, is natural resources and the environment, for
fairly obvious reasons and yourself being from the West, you
can appreciate some of those issues.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S SUPPLY-
DEMAND IMBALANCE
Senator Allard. Yes. Okay. I'd like to have you provide,
unless you already have it with you, a comparative analysis of
GAO's current supply and demand imbalance between staff
capacity and job demands of the last 5 and 10 years. Can we do
that with current figures?
Mr. Walker. We'll be happy to provide data for the record,
Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Question. For each of GAO's 13 mission areas, please
compare changes in the supply/demand imbalance between staff
capacity and job demands for fiscal years 2006, 2001, and 1996.
How does GAO measure supply and demand as it relates to this
issue? What criteria does GAO use to identify backlogs?
Answer. As of the end of March 2006, GAO had 374 requests
from Congress that had not yet been started (defined as the
imbalance between supply and demand). This compares to the 361
requests pending at the end of fiscal year 2001 and 349
requests pending at the close of fiscal year 1996.
Pending requests include those (1) assigned to teams but
still awaiting screening at GAO's weekly Engagement Acceptance
Meeting, (2) approved at the EAM to start but not yet begun,
and (3) awaiting staff. It does not include work that is
contingent on a future due date or event.
The following table shows the number of pending requests
for each of GAO's 13 mission teams as of the end of March 2006
and the end of fiscal year 2001. GAO's mission teams were
organized by the current Comptroller General beginning in
fiscal year 2001, so information on their pending requests in
1996 does not exist.
PENDING REQUESTS BY MISSION TEAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Team 2001 \1\ 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquisition and Sourcing Management (ASM)..... 23 37
Applied Research and Methods (ARM)............ 3 3
Defense Capabilities and Management (DCM)..... 8 21
Education, Workforce, and Income Security 18 23
(EWIS).......................................
Financial Management and Assurance (FMA)...... 1 44
Financial Markets and Community Investment 15 13
(FMCI).......................................
Health Care (HC).............................. 84 82
Homeland Security and Justice (HSJ)........... NA 45
International Affairs and Trade (TAT)......... 7 12
Information Technology (IT)................... 17 12
Natural Resources and Environment (NRE)....... 59 54
Physical Infrastructure (PI).................. 38 22
Strategic Issues (SI)......................... 12 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tax Administration and Justice (TAJ) had 69 pending requests at the
end of fiscal year 2001 and the Office of Special Investigations (0SI)
had 7. TM was merged mainly into HSJ and SI and 0SI was merged mainly
with FMA and the Office of General Counsel.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S HIGH RISK LIST
Senator Allard. Another area I wanted to cover before we
bring things to a close is your high risk list. Can you give us
a rating of how effective that program might be?
Mr. Walker. Well Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking that
question. It's a very timely question. I have to give credit to
my predecessor, Chuck Bowsher and the individuals who were at
GAO in the early 1990's for creating the high risk list. It's
been public since around about 1992. Since I've been
Comptroller General, I've tried to work with our GAO executives
and others, to make it a much more strategic list. Not just
focused on fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement which will
never be zero, but also to address major transformation
challenges facing the Federal Government and to take a more
strategic approach.
I'm pleased to say, that a very high percentage of our
hearings and a very high percentage of our financial benefits
and other accomplishments, are directly related to the high
risk list. The Congress is focusing on the high risk list for
the most part. GAO continues to focus on it. The administration
is now working with us to create action plans for every high
risk area. As you know, the President's management agenda is
based, in large part, on GAO's high risk list and that is not
an accident.
Furthermore, GAO's high risk program is being emulated in
other countries, in other States, and localities and is now on
the short list for an Innovations in Government Award from
Harvard. Whether or not we'll be selected, we've made the short
list. This program is making a difference, and I think it's an
example of when you're dealing with an entity that's as vast as
the Federal Government and when you've got limited resources,
you need to figure out some way to target. We can target, the
Congress can target, the agencies can target whatever resources
and authorities they have, to have the most impact. This has
clearly been a valuable tool in getting that done.
I don't know if Gene has anything.
HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S HIGH
RISK LIST
Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Chairman, I've been involved in the program
since it was created back in 1990 and I can tell you, it has
tremendous value over time in sustaining attention between
administrations and with changes in the Congress. A lot of
these problems require sustained attention over time. And even
for some of them, the areas that are still on the high risk
list, even though they have not been taken off yet, there's
been a lot of progress made because of this sustained
attention. Medicare, for example, now has a means to measure
the level of improper payments that they're sending out. That
didn't exist when we put them on the list back in 1990 and
that's enabling them to measure the degree of progress that
they're making and target corrective actions.
Tax enforcement, the latest measure of the tax gap had
occurred back in 1988 and because that area has been on the
high risk list, there has been a new estimate made of the tax
gap, which is about $300 billion. In the Department of Energy
(DOE) area for example, on contracting, since we've put that on
the list, even though they're not taking off yet, they're now
competing contracts, where they had not been before and other
progress has been made.
So it's a very, very effective means and I could tell you,
when Dave and I have met with heads of agencies, nobody really
wants to be on the list and they're making concerted progress
to get off. And they see the benefits of also being on the
list, to get attention to their area.
Mr. Walker. But let me footnote, Mr. Chairman, in addition
to everything that Gene said, by taking a much more strategic
and transformational approach to the high risk list, I must
say, that I have actually received two telephone calls from
heads of agencies, thanking us for putting them on the high
risk list. And let me tell you why. Because one of the things
that we've also done, is we've noted which items on the high
risk list not only require action by the executive branch, but
also require action by the Congress. And when you look at that
high risk list, anything that has an asterisk, means that both
branches of Government have to be involved to create a more
positive future. In many cases, by putting an item on the high
risk list, that provides attention and additional momentum for
changes not just within the executive branch, but also within
the legislative branch. One example of that, is a topic that
you talked about earlier, namely human capital reform. We put
that on our high risk list in January 2000. There's been more
done administratively and legislatively in the human capital
area since January 2000, than the 20 years prior to that.
Therefore, it can make a difference. It is making a difference.
CRITERIA FOR COMING ON AND OFF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S
HIGH RISK LIST
Senator Allard. Let me serve the role of a devil's
advocate, we have two that have been on there--DOE and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contract
management. They've been on there forever. And there hasn't
seemed to be any improvement. Doesn't that diminish the
effectiveness of your program?
Mr. Walker. Well we've had a number that have come off over
the years and we've had some that have come on over the years.
I can assure you, that people don't come off until they earn
coming off.
The other thing that is different here is that within 1
year of my coming on board, one of the things that we did
working with GAO's executives and also providing an opportunity
for comments from the Congress and the executive branch, we
came up with clearly defined, transparent, and consistently
applied criteria for what it took to go on the list and what it
took to come off the list. This has helped tremendously.
And the last thing I would say is this, the current
administration is taking the high risk list seriously, as
evidenced by the fact that they're working with us and the
agencies to try to develop a specific action plan for each item
to eventually get off the list. In some cases, it took years
for people to get where they are, and it's going to take years
to get off.
The most prominent example, Mr. Chairman, is that the
Defense Department has 8 of 25 high risk areas individually and
shares all 6 of the Government-wide areas. So it has 14 of 25.
And in many cases, Mr. Chairman, it's not just because it's
going to take a long time to deal with it and there needs to be
more attention in the executive branch, it's because there
needs to be more attention paid in the legislative branch.
There needs to be more accountability than there has been, in
many regards.
Senator Allard. Have we ever had any legislative agencies
on this list?
Mr. Walker. This list has been geared toward the executive
branch, which is an overwhelming percentage of Federal revenues
and expenditures. And as you might imagine, Mr. Chairman, that
raises certain sensitivity issues, since we are a sister agency
to other legislative branch agencies.
Senator Allard. Just a thought I had. Okay. Before
concluding the hearing, I would like to thank your staff for
the exceptional work that they do to support this subcommittee.
And in particular, Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn have been
steadfast in their commitment to support our oversight of the
Capitol Visitor Center.
In addition, Gloria Jarmon and many of your other staff
provide outstanding advice and guidance to the subcommittee
routinely and we appreciate their efforts.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
There will be some additional questions that will be
submitted to your agency for response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Office for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
Question. GAO's budget requests 50 additional full-time equivalent
employees. What is the full-year cost for the additional FTEs, and why
isn't this cost made clear in the budget justification?
Answer. The full-year cost for 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff
is about $5.8 million using an average annual salary of $116,362
including benefits. Our workforce plan projects that we will end fiscal
year 2006 with an onboard strength of 3,350 staff. This staffing level
will position GAO to utilize 3,217 FTEs in fiscal year 2006 and 3,267
FTEs in fiscal year 2007.
The cost to support these staff in fiscal year 2007, assuming no
other staffing changes, is included in the budget request as part of
estimated annualization costs. The annualization cost represents the
difference between the estimated costs to be paid in fiscal year 2006
and fiscal year 2007. The annualization cost has been reduced by
expected savings from leave-without-pay and part-time schedules, and
includes the cost to maintain our student intern and knowledge transfer
programs. The intern program has been an effective recruitment tool for
permanent hires, especially in our specialized areas of accounting and
financial management. The knowledge transfer program is a vital tool in
our succession planning strategy to help ensure continuity of
operations.
Question. Given that GAO's budget was cut below the request in
fiscal year 2006, how has the agency managed to maintain the fully
authorized level of FTEs?
Answer. We expect to be able to maintain 3,217 FTEs in fiscal year
2006 primarily due to lower average compensation costs than estimated.
We estimate our actual fiscal year 2006 compensation costs will be
lower than we estimated in January 2005 at the time our budget request
was prepared, primarily due to: (1) a lower on-board strength at the
beginning of fiscal year 2006 than assumed in our budget request; and
(2) institution of our new compensation program which is market-based
and more performance-oriented that will result in somewhat lower
average salary growth than originally expected.
Question. Given GAO is requesting 50 additional employees, why is
there a need for $500,000 in additional costs for contract services?
Answer. Based on our current assessment of trends in engagements
and audits, we anticipate an increasing demand for technical expertise.
We expect to continue to rely on external experts and advisors in
disciplines related to our work in physical infrastructure, education,
pension simulations, health care, natural resources, economic analyses,
and survey assistance. Contract services support congressional
engagements by providing specialized, expert advice and assistance not
readily available from GAO staff and not necessarily needed on a
recurring basis. Contract services are also used when certain kinds of
expertise are needed within a compressed time-frame to meet
congressional needs for particular engagements, projects, or audits.
For example, we plan to use contract services to provide expertise on a
congressional request related to utility tunnels.
Examples of contract services can range from expert advice on
specific issues to an analysis of a particular program. We have found
that contracts--such as with the National Academies--provide an
efficient, flexible vehicle to obtain technical assistance and
expertise in highly specialized areas. We have used the expertise of
the National Academies in such areas as: information on trends in
printing and dissemination, technologies to protect structures from
wildfires, environmental indicators, air traffic control modernization
and privatization, vulnerabilities of federal lands to climate changes,
and the Capitol Visitor Center.
Question. GAO's budget includes $3.894 million in ``relatively
controllable costs'' associated with information technology. Please
provide a breakout of the projects and activities that comprise the
$3.894 million estimate, and the projected impact of not funding each
of these items.
Answer. In preparing our fiscal year 2007 budget request, we
vigorously scrubbed our requirements and limited the items included in
our request to selected, targeted initiatives that we believe are
essential to our ability to maintain our effectiveness and
productivity. These initiatives primarily relate to (1) enhancing
critical business systems and (2) addressing security requirements
resulting from recent federal guidance. If funding is not directly
provided for the requested initiatives, we may need to consider
delaying these improvements which will only result in increased cost
over time due to future price level increases. Alternatively, we may
need to consider our staffing levels in fiscal year 2007 in order to
ensure that we could pursue these initiatives. The following table
provides additional information on the requested increases for
Information Technology activities and the impact of not funding these
items.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASES REQUESTED FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace GAO's financial management system.................. 1,400
GAO's financial management system needs to be replaced
now and is a priority effort over the next 2 years. Our
financial management system is antiquated, is no longer
supported by the vendor, fails to meet current business
system requirements, and is in danger of failing. If the
system is not replaced expeditiously, we run the risk of
being unable to (1) effectively operate our financial
management system, (2) produce auditable financial
statements, and (3) meet internal control standards
without extensive manual intervention and support.
In fiscal year 2006, we plan to select a government
cross-service provider and begin a phased implementation
in fiscal year 2007. The replacement financial management
system will provide integrated budgeting, purchasing, and
accounting functionality while enhancing the information
available to program managers, and allow us to meet our
goal of being a model agency.
Enhance the Engagement Management and Job Information 425
Systems...................................................
In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we plan to continue the
redesign of the Engagement Management System and Job
Information Systems. With the integration of existing
systems such as the Congressional Contact System and
Staffing Information System into the Engagement
Management System, the new system will provide a more
robust management tool which will allow one information
source and access point for planning, staffing, and
management of GAO's evaluation work. Currently, GAO
maintains multiple systems with similar data, requiring
managers to enter redundant data into multiple databases,
reconcile information to ensure its accuracy, and access
multiple systems to obtain information needed to manage
and conduct congressional engagements.
Improve IT security and systems............................ 2,069
In fiscal year 2006, GAO will relocate its alternate
computing facility for disaster recovery and continuity
of operations from a commercial site to one that is
shared with other legislative branch agencies. In fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, we will continue to implement
security features to identify and stop potential hackers
and improve the overall security of the agency's
information and technology assets.
In fiscal year 2007, we will initiate the transition to
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) to comply with federal
guidance and policy to implement IPv6 by fiscal year
2008. This will require the upgrade of numerous
infrastructure devices and GAO applications to ensure
interoperability and IT security.
With the completion of installing SIPRNet--DOD's
Internet for sharing data classified up to the secret
level--in the field offices, our efforts will shift to
installing access to DOD's Non-classified Internet
Protocol Router Network system, NIPRNet, in fiscal year
2007. Electronic access to DOD's systems allows staff to
obtain information needed to complete engagements without
incurring travel costs.
In addition, we will build upon our design of the
Hurricane Central Portal to create portals that will
provide a single access point to enterprise information
resources, tools, and common applications within the GAO
network. These portals will facilitate timely and
effective staff research and access to data needed to
respond to congressional inquiries. The initial focus
will be a portal for the core business and analyst
communities.
------------
Total................................................ 3,894
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. GAO's budget proposes $3.819 million in ``relatively
controllable costs'' associated with building management. Please
provide a breakout of this requested increase, and the impact of not
funding these items.
Answer. In preparing our fiscal year 2007 budget request, we
vigorously scrubbed our requirements and limited the items included in
our request to selected, targeted initiatives that we believe are
essential to our ability to maintain our effectiveness and
productivity. These initiatives primarily relate to (1) cyclical
maintenance identified in our 2005 GAO Building Condition Assessment
Report, and (2) security requirements resulting from recent federal
guidance. If funding is not directly provided for the requested
initiatives, we may need to consider delaying these improvements which
will only result in increased cost over time due to future price level
increases. Alternatively, we may need to consider our staffing levels
in fiscal year 2007 in order to ensure that we could pursue these
initiatives. The following table provides additional information on the
requested increases for Building Management activities and the impact
of not funding these items.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 INCREASE REQUESTED FOR BUILDING MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO Building Maintenance and Repair........................ 922
In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, we plan to undertake
several maintenance and repair projects identified in our
2005 Building Condition Assessment report. In fiscal year
2007, we plan to continue upgrades to the heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, replace the
cooling towers, upgrade the handicapped lift, and perform
cyclical maintenance on the building elevators. In order
to ensure the safety of GAO staff, we could not defer
critical elements, such as elevator upgrades.
Increase Security For Incoming Mail And Packages........... 400
We plan to relocate and consolidate our mail and
package receiving facilities to help ensure the safety
and security of GAO staff and assets in the event of the
receipt of hazardous materials.
Upgrade Contract Security Force............................ 610
In fiscal year 2005, we restructured the contract for
the security force to upgrade the qualifications for the
security force to Special Police Officers, gradually
replacing GSA guards. The restructuring will help ensure
a more professional, secure environment. In fiscal year
2006, we completed the restructuring of the security
force and have attained full staffing with special police
officers. The requested increase represents the
annualized cost of making the transition from GSA guards
to special police officers. If the requested funding is
not available, we would be required to reduce the number
of officers that we could support and determine other
ways to help mitigate the potential risks to GAO staff
and assets.
Integrated Electronic Security System (IESS)............... 1,225
We plan to implement an IESS at GAO headquarters in
fiscal year 2006 and expand the system to the field
offices in fiscal year 2007. The IESS will allow GAO to
integrate headquarters and field office access control,
surveillance, and alarm systems and provide the ability
to monitor field activity from a console in the
headquarters Command Control Center. We anticipate some
savings will result from integrating the field offices
and headquarters control systems and less reliance on the
Federal Protective Service (FPS) in the field. The
integrated system will allow GAO to comply with Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12) which sets
forth requirements for using government-issued
identification, Smart Cards, to permit access to federal
agencies.
Security Investigations.................................... 197
In fiscal year 2006, we will start conducting higher-
level investigations on contractors and interns to meet
the requirements of HSPD 12 for the issuance of
government identification to allow access to federal
facilities. In addition, in fiscal year 2007, a
significant number of staff are due for cyclical updates
of their security clearance which is required to gain
access to needed information and facilities.
Upgrade Tax Rooms.......................................... 225
We plan to assess secure space in the field offices and
implement changes needed to comply with Internal Revenue
Service guidelines for storing tax returns and other
sensitive information.
Design For Library & 7th Floor............................. 240
We plan to redesign the physical layout of our library
facility to (1) reconfigure space to improve work
collaboration as we reduce our physical collection and
migrate to greater use of electronic resources, and (2)
design additional workspace to accommodate displaced GAO
staff when the GAO Building is used as an alternate
facility for congressional staff.
------------
Total................................................ 3,819
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. How many GAO staff did not perform at a satisfactory
level (meets expectations or better rating) in 2005 and were thus
ineligible for purchase power protection?
Answer. Only 8 staff did not perform at a meets expectation level
or better and therefore did not receive an annual adjustment. In
addition, 19 staff did not meet the relative performance requirements
for satisfactory performance and therefore did not receive an annual
adjustment.
Question. What happened to these individuals?
Answer. The 8 employees whose performance was not at a meets
expectations level or better did not receive the annual adjustment or
any other salary increases or performance bonuses. The remaining 19
employees did not receive the annual adjustment, but were assessed for
performance based compensation and were eligible to receive a
performance bonus.
Question. Were the affected employees aware of the reasons for
being denied their COLA's?
Answer. Yes. GAO has implemented a market-based and performance-
oriented compensation system and does not provide an across-the-board
increase to all employees regardless of their performance, roles and
responsibilities or salary in relation to the market. Our annual
adjustment reflects changes in the cost of labor and is one component
of an employee's compensation. As noted above, some employees were
ineligible for this adjustment due to their performance.
Employees who didn't receive adjustments due to ``below
expectations'' ratings were made aware that their appraisals made them
ineligible for salary adjustments or performance bonuses. The 19
employees who didn't receive annual adjustments due to the relative
performance criteria were considered for performance based
compensation. All staff can access a performance-based compensation
report from a web-based system This report contains information about
employees' ratings, base salary increases and/or performance bonuses,
but does not provide a specific explanation of why the amount may be a
bonus rather than a base salary adjustment. Various communications were
undertaken to inform staff as to the nature and basis for 2006 salary
adjustments--including who was or was not eligible for the annual
adjustment component. These included a special Comptroller General
televised chat for which the briefing materials were posted for all
staff. A GAO order covering the annual adjustment and performance-based
compensation process was issued for notice and comment. Lastly, a PBC
guide with calculation examples was posted on the GAO intranet. Human
Capital Office staff also provided specific explanations of individual
salary adjustments to employees upon request.
Question. What affect has the GAO Human Capital Reform Act had on
the morale of the employees in your agency?
Answer. The Human Capital Reform Act (HC II) was passed in July
2004 and provided GAO with several flexibilities including permanent
authority for the Comptroller General to offer voluntary early
retirement, voluntary separation incentive payments, enhanced annual
leave for key employees, flexible relocation benefits and an executive
exchange program. In addition, the act authorized the Comptroller
General to establish revised pay retention regulations and to determine
the annual salary adjustment for GAO staff rather than increasing
salaries by the percentage authorized for the General Schedule. The
Comptroller General's authority to establish the amount of the annual
adjustment was effective for increases effective on or after October 1,
2005. Therefore, January 2006 represented the first exercise of this
authority.
GAO conducts an annual employee feedback survey to give staff an
opportunity to provide input on various issues relating to their
employment at GAO. The results from the 2005 survey which was the first
conducted since the passage of Public Law 108-271 (May and June 2005)
show morale improved from the prior year with 71.24 percent of
employees agreeing or strongly agreeing that their morale was good. In
the 2004 survey (July and August of 2004), 68.76 percent of employees
agreed or strongly agreed that their morale was good. While we can't
attribute changes in morale to this particular legislation or any other
single factor, the next survey will be conducted in the summer of 2006
after the HC-II pay flexibilities have been exercised. Employees'
responses on the morale question have trended upwards in 2003, 2004 and
2005 and we will track the 2006 responses when the survey is completed
in light of the legislation and other changes that have occurred in the
agency in the past year.
Question. Why did you not allow for a minimum of a two year
transition period before implementing the GAO annual pay adjustment
provisions?
Answer. We did. In 2003, as part of our legislative proposal, the
Comptroller General laid out plans for a 2-year transition period with
increases under the new authority occurring in January 2005 at the
earliest. Public Law 108-271 was passed in July of 2004 and provided
for implementation of the Comptroller General's annual pay adjustment
authority to be effective for any increases effective after October 1,
2005. In January 2005, GAO adjusted employees' salaries at the same
time and to the same extent as the General Schedule and January 2006
was the first year in which GAO employees received a different annual
adjustment than the executive branch.
Question. Why was the restructuring of GAO senior analysts (Band
IIs) carried out?
Answer. As part of our overall human capital transformation
efforts, GAO has developed and implemented a modern classification
system and a market-based and more performance-oriented compensation
system. The principles that guided the development of our
classification and compensation system are as follows:
--Enable GAO to attract and retain top talent
--Result in equal pay for work of equal value over time
--Reflect the roles and responsibilities that staff are expected to
perform
--Be reasonable, competitive, performance-oriented; and based on
skills, knowledge and roles
--Be affordable and sustainable based on current and expected
resource levels
--Conform to applicable statutory limits.
The purpose of restructuring the Band II position was to clearly
distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of those analysts
who are generally individual contributors and/or sometimes provide
overall leadership on selected engagements and those who are expected
to consistently take on a leadership role for a broad range of
engagements over time. When comparing Band II roles, responsibilities
and pay to the market, the Watson Wyatt compensation study validated
that these two roles should have different pay ranges. By better
linking roles and responsibilities to the appropriate market-based pay
ranges, senior analysts will be more equitably compensated.
Question. When did the idea of the senior analyst (Band II)
restructuring occur to you?
Answer. The issue of how GAO classifies its analyst staff first
surfaced in 2000 during the development of GAO's competency-based
performance system. As part of the competency validation effort, some
Band II employees reported that certain work activities associated with
leadership and the development of staff were relevant and important to
their responsibilities and other employees indicated that they were not
relevant. As a result of this bimodal response, these work activities
were not included in the competency-based performance system, but the
reasons for the differing response remained a matter of concern.
In preparation for the development of market-based compensation
ranges, it was essential to address the issue of Band II roles and
responsibilities in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking with
comparable positions. The results of the market-based study, which was
conducted from July to October of 2004, indicated that the different
Band II roles should have different pay ranges. In response, the Band
II restructuring effort was formally announced to staff in May 2005,
placement decisions were relayed to individual employees in December
2005 and placements actions effected in January 2006.
Question. Did you ever mention the possibility of restructuring
GAO's Band IIs during the legislative consideration of your human
capital proposal? Why not?
Answer. At the time of the 2003 hearings on human capital II, GAO
had not formulated any response to address the issues associated with
Band IIs' roles and responsibilities. We had no idea in 2003 what the
results, if any, of our market-based compensation study would be.
Question. What have been the benefits and costs of the Band II
restructuring process?
Answer. There are significant benefits to implementing a modern and
credible classification and compensation system. It supports our
continuing efforts to achieve our strategic goal of maximizing the
agency's value by becoming a model federal agency and a world class
professional services organization. The Band II restructuring process
was integral to the effort to classify positions to the appropriate
levels of responsibility and appropriate market-based salary ranges.
While direct cost savings were not the impetus for our classification
and compensation initiatives, over 80 percent of our budget is composed
of people-related costs. Our restructuring of Band II along with the
agency-wide implementation of a market-based and performance-oriented
compensation system is a key element in the efficient use of our
budget. Our previous pay system did not result in equal pay for equal
work, was financially unsustainable and harmed the agency's ability to
adequately reward strong performance. The new system will support our
efforts to attract, retain, award and motivate top talent.
However, we recognize that there are also costs associated with any
significant change and the restructuring was difficult for GAO staff,
particularly for long-term employees directly affected by the
restructuring. Transformation efforts take patience and perseverance to
achieve results and we fully expect that employees' acceptance of these
changes will take time.
Question. How much did GAO ``save'' by freezing the salaries and
denying one-half of bonuses earned of its staff?
Answer. The implementation of a market-based compensation system
was not designed to save the agency money. In fact, only 47 staff (2.6
percent) assessed for performance-based compensation and onboard as of
the effective date of these increases received no salary increase or
performance bonus this year. Our compensation system is a part of our
overall transformation effort whose goal is to establish modern,
effective, and credible human capital policies in order to ensure that
GAO is well positioned to serve our congressional clients, maximize our
performance, operate the organization within the resources provided in
a constrained budget environment, and assure our accountability and
service to the nation not only now, but also in the future.
There were 236 Band II Analysts and Specialists who were placed in
Band IIA and who had salaries in excess of the IIA maximum rate. Under
the policy adopted to mitigate the impact of the Band II restructuring,
these staff whose average salary is approximately $109,000 were
provided 50 percent of their performance-based compensation as a base
salary adjustment not to exceed the maximum ``transition'' rate. The
transition rate allows all band IIA employees to earn a maximum salary
equal to the maximum rate that these employees were eligible to earn in
2005 as Band IIs, i.e., $118,700 in Washington, D. C. (Note: In some
locations, the transition maximum was slightly higher than the former
Band II maximum due to differing locality rates.) If these 236
employees had been provided with the 2.6 percent annual adjustment and
the additional 50 percent of their PBC, the added annual cost would
have been approximately $882,000.
Question. What is GAO's policy for paying the relocation expenses
of an employee who requests a transfer from HQ to a region?
Answer. GAO does not pay the relocation expenses for employees who
request to be transferred. As required by Federal Travel Regulation
302.1-1, GAO only offers relocation benefits if GAO determines that a
transfer is in the interest of the Government. GAO always decides in
advance of issuing a job announcement if it will offer relocation
benefits for a position. If the decision is made to offer relocation
benefits, that notation is made in the job announcement. Employees
receive relocation benefits only if they are chosen for a position
which includes relocation benefits in the job announcement. Employees
who request to transfer from headquarters to a field office (or vise
versa) are generally allowed to transfer if a position is available,
however, the agency does not pay their relocation expenses.
Question. In recent years, GAO, as well as other federal agencies,
has invested significant resources to upgrade security. Yet, both
physical and information security remain a management challenge for the
GAO. Please describe why these areas continue to be a management
challenge.
Answer. The continuing dynamics of information technology (IT) and
security is the primary reason for GAO's management challenge. It is a
challenge that is not unique to GAO--all federal agencies are dealing
with this challenge. Essentially, changing security threats, evolving
security guidance, and new technologies have created an environment in
a high state of flux. Our experience has already shown that security
designs implemented today may not have the same effect of protecting
our information resources from a newly designed threat, or variant of
an existing threat, tomorrow.
The explosion of the Internet, e-commerce and web-based services,
along with the rapidly expanding presence of wireless and other
computing devices, has created new challenges for protecting IT
systems, privacy information and other agency information assets. In
addition, the ease with which technology allows the sharing and
transfer of information and the portability of cellular devices, tablet
computers, and PDAs presents ongoing IT security threats--such as
viruses, worms, spyware, zero day exploits, as well as pharming,
phishing and spoofing exploits. Unfortunately, these are risks and
challenges that are not likely to abate as we look forward and as new
threats and the potential for new exploits emerge.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has
significantly increased its government-wide guidance on IT, providing
more and greater detail in direct response to legislative direction and
the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). FISMA, in
turn, has expanded the visibility of each federal agency's IT programs
and how secure they are--and caused an increase in the workload and
resources needed to comply with government-wide standards and reporting
requirements. Furthermore, the guidance on implementing and reporting
on FISMA requirements, as well as the related NIST standards and
technology approaches continues to evolve. We foresee an increase
rather than a decrease in work directly supporting these initiatives.
Also, directives to move towards new technologies, such as IPv6,
the next generation Internet protocol, may require a significant
restructuring of network architectures and network services. (OMB has
mandated that all Federal agencies must be using IPv6 by June 2008.) By
implementing some of these new technologies, the existing mechanisms
implemented to secure the network and information systems may need to
be discarded and replaced by very different technologies, creating
their own set of new challenges. Significant changes in technology will
require additional resources for training and education of staff to
meet the challenge. In the case of IPv6, it is critical that we develop
and implement a sound transition plan to acquire, test and deploy the
needed infrastructure equipment to implement IPv6 and ensure secure
compatibility and interoperability with customers, clients, business
partners, and service providers. The full implication of IPv6
implementation from a security standpoint is just now emerging as
industry and organizations/agencies gain a greater understanding of the
protocol.
In addition, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 and
Office of Management and Budget guidance require federal agencies
implement a new federal employee identification standard in October
2006. The technical requirements to implement these directives are
contained in the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 201
guidelines. However, the vendor community is still developing and
testing products capable of meeting the new standards and requirements.
Meanwhile, agencies are trying to develop systems and processes to
implement the new guidelines in a timely fashion in the absence of
street-ready products.
Question. What further investments do you believe are necessary to
resolve the challenge?
Answer. Due to the dynamic nature of the security and IT
environments, there is no silver bullet to resolve the challenge. By
following consistent standards and best practices, GAO has implemented
a defense-in-depth approach using measured technical security controls
to protect our information systems and information at the perimeter,
throughout the network, and at the desktop. We still face mounting
challenges from changing technologies and multi-vendor solutions. Most
environments today must still rely on multi-vendor solutions that lack
appropriate levels of integration. As the industry matures, we should
see more integrated solutions on the market. GAO's future investments
will be in support of our desire to consolidate security solutions to a
limited number of vendors providing integrated effective solutions and
reporting capabilities. These solutions will require both investments
in technologies and human resources. As GAO moves forward, we will
continue to review and update our security tools and approaches to
ensure they are the most cost effective--and are responsive to ever
evolving threats.
Overall, the increasing and more sophisticated outsider threats,
together with additional legislative mandates, presage a steady level
of spending, at a minimum, for security initiatives to ensure the
safeguard of our information resources and compliance with IT security
regulations. While the composition of IT security funding will likely
change to meet new security challenges and government wide
requirements, we don't--at this time--envision overall costs
decreasing, particularly in light of the required move to IPv6.
GAO has several actions planned or underway in the area of physical
security which will help improve our security posture, including an
integrated access security system which utilizes enhanced Smartcard
technology, more stringent background investigations for federal
employees and contractors, and a more robust security force of special
police officers. However, given the dynamic nature of the nation's
post-September 11 security environment, the challenge is continually
evolving.
Question. What is the status of your effort to install an
integrated access security system?
Answer. GAO is working with a solutions provider to work through
the details of implementing the new technology. During fiscal year
2006, we plan to establish an Emergency Operations Center in
headquarters as the focal point of our efforts to integrate physical
security issues. This Center will allow us to monitor and control
physical access issues in both headquarters and the field. It will also
allow us to reduce our reliance in 10 field offices on local Federal
Protective Service Staff and security forces. We also plan to install
turnstiles in the headquarters lobby areas, implement Smartcard
technology consistent with HSPD 12 and FIPS 201, and implement a
visitor and credential management system in headquarters. In fiscal
years 2007 and 2008, we plan to phase implementation of the access
security system to the field offices.
Question. What is the status of your disaster recovery/continuity
of operations program?
Answer. We have put in place a structured plan and process--which
we test on a periodic basis--for business continuity planning and
disaster recovery. We have also expanded the capability of our offsite
alternative computing facility to ensure the recovery and restoration
of the IT systems that support the agency's business processes in the
event of a disruption. Expanded capabilities include the installation
of additional file servers, operating systems, storage, back-up, data
lines, additional remote access licenses and replication technology to
synchronize headquarters production data at the alternative computing
site. And, we are in the process of moving our alternative computing
facility from a commercial site to the legislative branch facility
which will save us about $126,000 annually, while providing the
foundation for better coordination with other legislative branch
entities. The move will occur during the summer, 2006.
Question. Given the current environment of fiscal constraint, it is
unlikely the Congress will be able to fully fund your budget request.
a. What impact will this have on your plans for an FTE increase?
b. How will this affect your ability to meet the Congress' needs
for information?
Answer. If the Congress is unable to fully funding our budget
request, we may need to consider delaying some of the requested
initiatives which will only result in increased cost over time due to
future price level increases. Alternatively, we may need to consider
reducing our planned staffing level in fiscal year 2007 in order to
ensure that we could pursue the critical initiatives.
GAO already has a significant supply and demand imbalance with 374
requests from the Congress that had not been started as of March 2006.
If we are unable to increase our staffing, this imbalance will likely
continue. We will work with our clients on the Hill to determine their
priorities for our work, but we will obviously not be able to complete
all that they have requested.
Failure to increase our staffing to the requested level would also
have an impact on the timeliness of our work. While we continue to
receive good marks on our service to the Congress, we recognize that we
could always improve the timeliness of our work.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Allard. The subcommittee stands in recess until
tomorrow, April 27 at 10:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen 116, when
we will take testimony on the progress of the Capitol Visitor
Center construction. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon at 11:32 a.m., Wednesday, April 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:34 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER, ACTING EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
SUSAN ROBFOGEL, CHAIRWOMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PETER EVELETH, GENERAL COUNSEL
ALMA CANDELARIA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BETH HUGHES BROWN, BUDGET AND FINANCE OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning. This morning we meet to take testimony from
three legislative branch agencies: the Office of Compliance,
the Government Printing Office (GPO), and the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO). Each agency will appear as a separate
panel. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses this
morning.
I will hear first from Ms. Tamara Chrisler, Acting
Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, accompanied by
Ms. Susan Robfogel, Chair of the Board of the Office of
Compliance, and Pete Eveleth as General Counsel.
The Office of Compliance is requesting $3.4 million, an
increase of roughly 11 percent over the current budget, and
would fund three additional employees. The Office's budget is
small in view of its responsibilities. I plan to focus most of
my questions on the recent revelations concerning the health
and safety of the utility tunnels.
Ms. Chrisler, you may proceed with your testimony.
Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TAMARA E. CHRISLER
Senator Allard. Good morning.
Ms. Chrisler. As you mentioned, Chairwoman Robfogel and
General Counsel Pete Eveleth are with me this morning. Also
joining us from the Office of Compliance are Alma Candelaria,
Deputy Executive Director, and Beth Hughes Brown, our Budget
and Finance Officer.
And let me take a moment on behalf of the Office of
Compliance and thank you for the opportunity to present to you
this morning in support of our fiscal 2007 budget request.
Chair Robfogel and I have submitted for the record written
statements, and we appreciate the opportunity to be able to
appear before you this morning and just highlight some of the
items that we believe to be of significant importance in our
budget request.
As you know, in fiscal year 2006, the Office of Compliance
submitted to you a zero-based budget request. And we thank the
chairman, we thank the subcommittee, for support in that budget
request. Because of your support, the Office was able to carry
out its mission, as well as improve its inspection program,
which is of great significance.
Again, in fiscal year 2007, the Office of Compliance is
presenting a zero-based budget request. And the request is
designed to assist the Office in ensuring that Congress is a
model employer, that the legislative branch is a model
workplace and a safe working environment. And we are asking
your support in supporting our budget request so that we can
meet those goals.
Specifically, the Office of Compliance is requesting
additional funding to further a GAO recommended baseline
survey. This survey will allow us to gather data so that we
know what the employees and the employers in the legislative
community know about their rights, their responsibilities, the
CAA, as well as the Office of Compliance. This information will
allow the Office to engage in best practices, so that we may
measure our performance and so that we may focus our efforts on
education and outreach to the areas that are needed.
If we focus our efforts and provide assistance and
resources where the need is, then we will be able to ensure
that offices become self-sufficient and enable offices to know
where potential violations are themselves, correcting them
themselves, to assure a safe and healthy working environment.
This type of proactive approach will, in the long run, save
money. And Senator, it will save lives.
NEW FTE POSITIONS REQUESTED
In addition, the Office of Compliance is requesting
additional funding for three additional full-time equivalent
(FTE) positions, one being for a program manager-type position
to assist with dedicated service to the Office's programs and
projects, another for the accounts payable function of the
office, and the other for a management analyst position for the
General Counsel's Office.
Now significantly, the management analyst position will
allow the inspectors to go about the business of inspecting,
which is where their skills are and where their knowledge is.
Currently, the inspectors inspect facilities. They return to
the Office. They input data. They record data. They track data,
which is taking away from where the inspectors are really
needed, out in the field, inspecting the facilities, monitoring
progress and abatement. And we request your support in the
request for this additional management analyst position in the
General Counsel's Office.
I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that two of the three
positions that we are requesting can and will be funded by the
Office of Compliance through reprogramming of contract money.
So although we are requesting three FTE positions, we are in
the position to find two of those ourselves.
Last, but equally as significant as the other items that I
have mentioned, is the Office's request for additional funding
to inspect the Capitol Visitor Center. Because the center is
anticipated to be completed and opened in the near future, this
area will increase the Office of Compliance's responsibility by
0.7 million square feet. And because the Office is committed to
ensuring that this area, as well as the rest of the campus, is
safe and healthy and compliant, we are requesting your
assistance in ensuring that funding allows us to do this.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, Mr. Chairman, these are just but a few items in our
budget request that I wanted to highlight and bring to your
attention this morning. I thank you for the opportunity to be
able to present to you. At this time, I would ask that Chair
Robfogel be allowed a few minutes to address the subcommittee.
And Chair Robfogel, General Counsel Eveleth, and myself will
remain available to answer any questions that you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tamara E. Chrisler
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year
2007 budget request of the Office of Compliance.
Board Chair Susan Robfogel is in attendance with me today to
express the support of the Board of Directors for the Office's fiscal
year 2007 budget request. Also with me today are General Counsel Peter
Ames Eveleth, Deputy Executive Director Alma Candelaria, and
Administrative and Budget Officer, Beth Hughes Brown.
We present you again this year a completely zero based budget. We
hope that the transparency of the zero based format assists the
Committee in understanding from the ground up how the Office operates
its mandated programs in employment dispute resolution, in Occupational
Safety and Health and ADA public access inspections and enforcement,
and in education and outreach programs. This year, we have requested a
total of approximately $300,000 in additional funding.
2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the passage of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. As we begin this agency's
second decade, we can look back at much progress, and some rough
patches along the way. In February, 2004, the Government Accountability
Office issued its major Report ``Office of Compliance: Status of
Management Control Efforts to Improve Effectiveness'' GAO-04-400. At
approximately the same time, the Office issued its first comprehensive
Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2004-2006. Both of these documents, and
our strides in implementing them since 2004, reflect the continuing
improvement in the Office's focus on its core missions, and its growing
engagement with Congress and legislative branch agencies in
collaborative initiatives to enhance our services in the mandated areas
of dispute resolution, safety and health enforcement, and education and
outreach to our regulated community.
Recently, the Office formally adopted interim performance measures
for fiscal year 2006, after extensive stakeholder consultations--
including with the staff of this Committee. Such performance measures
represent another step toward the best practices in strategic planning
and management controls which GAO challenged this Office to achieve. We
are now also fully engaged in two other strategic initiatives: the
preparation of our next Strategic Plan, which will guide the Office in
fiscal year 2007 and beyond; and a complete Human Capital Review, which
is intended to result in a position classification, pay banding, and
possible pay for performance structure for the Office. The Office's
budget request is designed to further the goals of our strategic plan.
As recommended in the GAO Report and reflected in our Strategic
Plan, we continue to shift our focus in providing all our services to a
more interactive approach, enabling regulated employers to achieve
greater voluntary compliance with the varied requirements of the
Congressional Accountability Act. Legislative branch agencies are faced
with many employment, security and safety challenges. Our primary
mission is to advance safety, health and workplace rights for employees
and employers of the legislative branch, as mandated by the Act. We
strive toward that goal with just 17 full time equivalent (FTE)
positions and a current budget of about $3.1 million.
As this agency continues to implement the recommendations of the
GAO Report, and the goals and performance measures of our Strategic
Plan, we meet new operational challenges as we become better at what we
do. We have carefully prioritized our needs, and limited our requested
enhancements to meet only those challenges which handicap our ability
to make broader progress at this point in our development. This
morning, I will highlight a few of those requests.
dispute resolution
The Office's day-to-day employment dispute resolution function
involves controversies under ten different laws, everything from
alleged discrimination to the alleged failure to pay required overtime.
This dispute resolution activity remains largely unnoticed because of
the confidential nature of the counseling, mediation and hearing
processes conducted by the Office. Hundreds of disputes in nearly all
legislative branch agencies, as well as in offices of Members and
committees of both chambers have quietly been addressed through the
administrative dispute resolution system since 1995. The assistance to
employing offices and employees provided by this discreet service is
perhaps one of the great untold success stories of the past decade
regarding our contribution to the quality of Congress's internal
operations.
We are, however, operating with an employment dispute resolution
electronic case tracking system which was installed at the agency's
inception in 1996. This antiquated system (which is entirely different
from the Occupational Safety and Health inspection tracking system
which this Committee authorized last year) is very hard to use, and is
no longer compatible with our other operating systems. We have explored
whether it would be cost effective to upgrade this system, and have
been told by experts that it is cheaper to replace it. We are
requesting funds to implement that recommendation.
safety and health enforcement
GAO's 2004 Report found that ``In contrast to most other CAA
requirements, OOC is not fully in compliance with the CAA requirement
that it `conduct periodic inspections of all facilities' of the
agencies covered by the provision.'' GAO also found a ``dramatic
increase'' in the number of health and safety inspections requested by
employing offices and covered employees, and observed that the Office's
resources ``have not kept pace with this growth.'' We thank this
Committee for its positive response to GAO's finding.
For the current fiscal year, the Office received a significant
increase in OSH inspection and enforcement funding to enable us for the
first time to substantially comply with the Act's mandate that this
agency complete a comprehensive safety and health inspection of the
entire Capitol Hill campus during each Congress. The Office is now well
along in this definitive effort to establish the required authoritative
and comprehensive OSH base line for all 17 million square feet of
covered space in the D.C. metro area. General Counsel Eveleth and I are
pleased to report to you that as of today, the agency is on track to
complete that biennial inspection by the end of the 109th Congress.
Inspection of 100 percent of the campus is one of our recently adopted
performance measures. Thanks to you, we are better able to help the
Capitol Hill campus become safer and healthier much faster than
otherwise would have been possible.
As the Office gains experience with this much more intense and
efficient inspection regimen, it has become clear that the ``down
time'' our inspectors are currently spending back in the office doing
administrative tasks can be more cheaply and efficiently performed by a
lower cost management analyst, thus freeing up the inspectors to spend
more time in the field. We expect that the cost of this FTE will be
substantially offset by increased efficiencies in the use of inspector
time, and we plan to reprogram contractor funds to fund the salary of
this position. As several of our performance measures relate to
increased inspection efficiencies, we have requested that you approve
an additional position for this purpose.
The impact of the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center during
fiscal year 2007 will add approximately 0.7 million square feet to our
inspection load. Thus, we are seeking funding for that added activity.
educating our constituency
The Office is mandated by Congress to ``carry out a program of
education for Members of Congress and other employing authorities of
the legislative branch of the Federal Government respecting the laws
made applicable to them and a program to inform individuals of their
rights under laws made applicable to the legislative branch of the
Federal Government. . . .'' 2 U.S.C. 1381(h)(1). While the Office
continues to carry out this core mandate of the Act through various
educational and outreach activities, we have maximized our limited
capacity in this area.
A key obstacle to greater educational effectiveness is our lack of
comprehensive data regarding how and where we need to focus our
efforts. A primary agency performance measurement tool recommended in
the GAO Report is the establishment of a knowledge baseline regarding
the Congressional community's understanding of the Act and of the
Office's role in enforcing it. Such a baseline can best be established
through a survey. The survey data will help us better target our
education efforts and measure results. We are seeking funding for the
undertaking of survey activities to establish the baseline against
which we will measure our success in achieving our statutory mandates.
management support
The Office of Compliance makes extensive use of service vendors and
personal services contractors to provide many of our vital functions,
including employment dispute resolution and OSH inspections. In
general, this practice provides significant cost savings and allows
this small agency to maintain capacities on an ``as-needed'' basis.
However, some core internal control functions are currently also under-
served or contracted out due to our limited FTE authorization, which at
17 is two less than the agency was authorized in fiscal year 1998.
The Office has just two FTE's dedicated to all IT, HR, general
administrative support and fiscal management functions. This situation
has resulted in inefficiencies, work load overages, and the necessity
to contract out core functions, such as accounts payable. Accounting
staff is necessary to ensure that a separation of functions can be
maintained in our fiscal management. We are requesting one analyst FTE
to address our HR and program analyst deficit, and an accounting
technician FTE to bring our basic accounting and other fiscal
responsibilities on staff. The cost of these FTE's will be partially
offset by a reduction in contractor expenses.
conclusion
There are a number of other requests in our budget submission which
we commend for your consideration. On behalf of the Board of Directors,
the appointees and the entire staff of the Office of Compliance, I
again thank you for the Committee's support of the efforts of this
agency; I recommit to you that we are dedicated to using every dollar
of taxpayer money carefully and efficiently; and I respectfully request
that the Committee respond favorably to the Office's fiscal year 2007
budget request. We will be happy to respond to any questions which you
may have.
appendix--the congressional mandate
The Office of Compliance was established to administer and enforce
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1301, et seq.
The Congressional Accountability Act applies 12 workplace, employment,
and safety laws to Congress and other agencies and Instrumentalities of
the legislative branch. These laws include: the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970; the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act;
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Americans with
Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act of 1970; the Family Medical
Leave Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act; the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act;
the Employee Polygraph Protection Act; and veteran's employment and
reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code. The Act
was amended in 1998 to apply the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act.
Currently, the Office has regulatory responsibility for employers
in the legislative branch employing approximately 30,500 employees. The
Office is also charged by the Act to make recommendations to Congress
as to whether additional employment and public services and
accommodations laws should be made applicable to the employing offices
within the legislative branch.
Under the direction of the Executive Director, the Office
administers a dispute resolution system to resolve disputes and
complaints arising under the Act, and carries out an education and
training program for the regulated community on the rights and
responsibilities under the Act. The General Counsel has independent
investigatory and enforcement authority with respect to certain of the
laws administered under the Act and represents the Office in all
judicial proceedings under the Act.
the board of directors and staff
The Office has a five-member, non-partisan Board of Directors
appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of both houses of
Congress. The Board appoints the executive leadership of the agency,
acts as an adjudicative body in reviewing appeals by parties aggrieved
by decisions of Hearing Officers on complaints filed with the Office,
and advises Congress on needed changes and amendments to the Act. The
Board members, who serve five-year terms, come from across the United
States, and are chosen for their expertise in the laws administered
under the Act. In a major vote of confidence in the current leadership
of the Office, Congress enacted legislation in 2004 and in 2005
granting authority to the bipartisan Congressional leadership to
appoint the current chair and members of the Board to a second 5 year
term in office, and to the Board to appoint the executive leadership of
the Office to second five year terms.
The Office of Compliance currently has 17 full-time employees and
pays the part-time Board members on a ``when-actually-employed'' basis.
Our staff performs a multiplicity of functions, including:
administrative dispute resolution, occupational safety and health and
disability access enforcement, labor relations regulatory activity,
education, Congressional relations, professional support for the Board
of Directors, and general administrative and fiscal functions. The
Office performs the functions of multiple agencies in and for the
Executive Branch, including but not limited to, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and the Federal Labor
Relations Authority. The Office regularly contracts for the part-time,
as-needed services of approximately 30 other individuals as mediators,
Hearing Officers, and safety and health investigators. The Office's
senior full-time safety and health investigator is on permanent detail
from the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
biennial osh-ada inspection
In the fiscal year 2006 budget, Congress provided substantial
additional funding to permit the Office of the General Counsel to meet
the statutory Occupational Safety and Health mandate to examine all
legislative branch facilities during the 109th Congress biennial cycle
of inspections. The total amount of covered premises in the
metropolitan Washington region is in excess of 17 million square feet.
The Office is intensely engaged in the implementation of the biennial
inspection regimen, and continues to carry out the GAO recommendation
that the inspection program include interactive and collegial
involvement on the part of the affected agencies.
As part of the revamped inspection regimen, the Office is now
utilizing a recently installed electronic tracking and report system
for OSH inspections and enforcement, and has adopted a widely
recognized risk assessment code (RAC) to classify all hazards found to
exist in the ongoing inspections.
more consultation and collegiality
GAO also recommended that ``OOC should establish congressional and
agency protocols . . . between the Congress, legislative branch
agencies, and OOC on what can be expected as OOC carries out its
work.'' (GAO Report, Introduction) The Office of Compliance continues
to develop new approaches to OSH and other regulatory activities which
involve greater consultation, coordination, and transparency in dispute
resolution, and in investigatory and enforcement activity. This effort
is time intensive and requires partnerships with employing offices and
employees and a concomitant educational and training initiative to
improve management and employee understanding of best practices. These
activities are focused on fostering more cooperative efforts at
achieving compliance with standards but they do not negate the
statutory mandate to enforce the law.
strains on agency resources
In last year's budget request, this Office highlighted the drastic
under-resourcing of the agency's OSH inspection and enforcement
responsibility. We thank the Committee for its leadership in
significantly improving the level of resources we are able to employ in
meeting the OSH challenge.
In this budget, the problems are less evident to outside
stakeholders, but no less urgent with regard to the Office's ability to
carry out its mission. We are requesting three FTE's to address chronic
major shortfalls in our administrative support capabilities in IT and
equipment maintenance, fiscal controls; and to address the emerging
need for more administrative support for the much larger OSH inspection
activities. The Office of Compliance continues to operate with three
fewer FTE's than it was provided when the agency began operations in
1996. However, our responsibilities and statutory missions have not
diminished. We respectfully submit that restoration of three FTE's will
greatly assist the Office in continuing to address the recommendations
of the 2004 GAO Report, and better serving our customer community.
We are also asking for funds to better focus our education and
outreach efforts, and a number of other inexpensive enhancements to
many of our program efforts which nevertheless provide significant
added value to the quality of workplace life on Capitol Hill.
Senator Allard. Ms. Robfogel.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SUSAN ROBFOGEL
Ms. Robfogel. I will emphasize only one point because I
know there are, as you say, there are many questions that you
have with respect to some of the safety violations that have
been discussed so extensively in the last few weeks.
I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the
support that you provided to the Office during the 2006 year.
As a result of the increased funding that we received last
year, the Office has been able to engage in a much rigorous
inspection of the entire congressional campus. And although we
are only 63 percent completed with respect to our inspection
with the 109th Congress, we have already identified 10,000
safety violations.
PREPARED STATEMENT
What our emphasis needs to be as we go forward is to be
sure that we have the funding to deal with abatement and
enforcement and to help the various constituents who are part
of the congressional campus to keep their building safe, and to
learn how to recognize safety violations when they see them.
We want to keep doing the job that we are trying to do, to
keep people who work on the Hill safe and to keep visitors who
come to the Hill safe. You have gone a long ways toward helping
us do our job. We need a little bit more support going forward.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Robfogel
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
am Susan Robfogel. As Chair of the Board of Directors of the
Office of Compliance, I am honored to be here today to join
Tamara Chrisler in testifying on the Office's fiscal year 2007
budget request. I want to take this opportunity to express my
appreciation and that of the rest of the Board for the
increased funding appropriated to the Office of Compliance in
fiscal year 2006 for purposes of completing a comprehensive
safety and health biennial inspection. I can assure you that
the Office is on track with this vital effort.
Mr. Chairman, the Board would like to commend the work of
the entire staff in achieving so many goals in the past few
years. We now have a Strategic Plan with a performance line of
sight to individual work plans; we have established or are
developing protocols to enable us better to partner with the
agencies for which we have employment law and safety and health
jurisdiction; and we have worked with this Committee, and GAO
to improve and systematize our business practices in budget,
performance measures, and strategic planning.
This record of improvement is the result of the hard work
and dedication of the four statutory officers who are appointed
by the Board, and the dedicated staff they have assembled.
While the Board wholeheartedly supports all of the budget
requests, we wish to underscore the need which the agency has
to increase its FTE complement to 20. Right now the FTE
complement of 17 is two less than the 19 the Office was
afforded in fiscal year 1998. Over the past several years, the
agency has concentrated its available resources on enhancing
its service delivery, particularly in the OSH area.
Consequently, there is a compelling need for basic operational
support staff. I can assure you that the Office of Compliance
will continue to make the most efficient use of every dollar
which is appropriated by this Committee.
We are available to address any questions.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony.
I would like to follow up on your request. You have
requested an 11-percent increase over the current year. You
gave us some brief explanation. I would like to go over and
make sure I understand that.
Ms. Chrisler. Yes.
Senator Allard. Those increases are in the area of three
additional full-time employees. It looks to be pretty much on
the management side, a program manager, an accounts payable
technician, and then a management analyst. Is that correct?
Ms. Chrisler. That is correct, for the General Counsel's
Office.
Senator Allard. And what is your priority on those? Did you
give those in the way of priority to us?
Ms. Chrisler. Thank you. The management analyst position is
a significant position. And that is a very significant
position.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Ms. Chrisler. The accounts payable position, what we have
now, Senator, is a very small human resource, as well as budget
staff, extremely small. And we are contracting some of those
services out now, which are core functions of our office. And
to, frankly, be more efficient and more effective in managing
our office, that accounts payable position is significant, as
well.
Senator Allard. I see.
Ms. Chrisler. The program manager-type position for our
office would be split between managing programs, managing
projects, as well as carrying out some of the human resource
functions in the Office, as well. So although all three
positions are desperately needed by the Office, we are able to
fund two of them.
Senator Allard. Well, I know it is difficult to set
priorities, and that is a tough question. I respect and thank
you for your straightforward response.
Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, sir.
Senator Allard. Now the Capitol Visitor Center, that is
another reason for that increase?
Ms. Chrisler. Yes, it is, Senator.
Senator Allard. Okay. Now, are there any other factors that
I did not pick up on in your testimony or maybe you did not
have in your testimony that is contributing to the 11-percent
increase that you are requesting?
Ms. Chrisler. There are a number of items that we are
requesting assistance for. The main ones are for the full-time
equivalent positions, the baseline survey, the case tracking.
What is significant and of main importance for us is to be able
to maintain our progress that we have made so far. The Office
wants to be able to sustain itself. And the Office is
requesting assistance to be able to grow with the surrounding
circumstances.
There are many circumstances that are getting greater
attention and requiring greater responsibility and greater
inspection and management by our Office. And we are asking your
support in general for us to be able to move with and maintain
the progress that we have made and also continue to make
progress, because as the campus moves and grows and as
incidents and issues and circumstances come to the attention of
the Office, we want to be in the position to provide the
services and resources that are necessary.
BIENNIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH INSPECTIONS
Senator Allard. How would you evaluate your biennial health
and safety inspection of the Capitol, including the House and
Senate facilities?
Ms. Chrisler. The progress on that is going very well. As
Chair Robfogel mentioned, we are 63 percent into that process.
And along with me this morning is General Counsel Eveleth, who
maintains overall management of that program. And I would like
to defer to him to add additional comments to that question.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have made significant
progress over the past years as a result of the additional
funding that we received for fiscal year 2006. In our 108th
Congress biennial inspection, we were only able to cover 25
percent of the square footage, that is, of the approximately 16
million-plus square footage. There will be an additional
700,000 once the visitor center comes online. But we were only
able to do 25 percent in the last biennial.
At this point, as has been said, we have covered 63
percent. And we anticipate completing the biennial inspection
for the 109th Congress by September of this year. So that is a
big step forward.
Senator Allard. It is.
Mr. Eveleth. As a result of that, we have identified, as
was indicated, something like 10,000 violations, as opposed to
our last inspection, where we discovered 2,600 violations. That
number, in turn exceeded the biennial inspection for the 107th
Congress where we identified something like 360 violations.
That does not mean it is because things have gotten worse. It
is just that we are doing a much more thorough baseline
inspection.
Senator Allard. And under those violations, have you tried
to break them down into categories?
FINDINGS BY RISK ASSESSMENT CODE
Mr. Eveleth. I can tell you, I can break it down. We have a
system which we call a RAC system. That is a risk assessment
code system. This is common in industry, and in other
departments. And ours is based on the Department of Defense's
risk assessment code system.
It is a combination of rating each hazard during the
inspection according to the risk of injury or illness or
potential of death. It depends upon a combination of the
probability that an employee could be hurt and the severity of
the illness. The RAC's are based on that. And the most serious
RAC rating would be a risk one, and that goes to a risk five,
which is de minimis.
Now we ourselves do not count risks that are de minimis. We
just do RAC one through four. And so I can tell you----
Senator Allard. The 10,000 only includes one through four.
It does not include five?
Mr. Eveleth. No. We do not even record de minimis ones.
Senator Allard. So the 10,000 would get you the RAC one,
two, three, and four.
Mr. Eveleth. Right. And of the RAC's, there are 20--this is
as of today or last week--we discovered 20 RAC ones--those are
the most serious--1,655 RAC two's; 7,681 RAC three's; and 759
RAC four's.
Senator Allard. What would be an example of a RAC four?
Mr. Eveleth. A RAC four would be such things as--let us
see. I have some examples of that. There may be some electrical
cord hazards, some ladder hazards, broken ladder, some fall
protection hazards. There might be a problem with fire
extinguishers, that they are not currently inspected. There
might be an issue about storage shelving hazards, overloaded
shelves or something.
Senator Allard. I have a pretty good feel where that is.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. And a RAC one example would be?
Mr. Eveleth. Well, a RAC one would be--as you know, the
tunnels would be an example of that, where there would be
falling concrete, where there is asbestos, and things of that
nature. A lot of electrical issues would also be a RAC one--
where a worker could be exposed to an electrical hazard.
Senator Allard. Bare wires or something like that.
Mr. Eveleth. Bare wires and so forth.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. And when we do the RAC's, it is not a one-
size-fits-all kind of RAC. In other words, an electrical hazard
in one situation might be a RAC one and another might be a RAC
four, depending on the circumstances. For example, if there
were a wet floor or something, that would heighten the risk, if
someone were to be shocked.
FIRST OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE COMPLAINT UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH ACT
Senator Allard. Now I would like to proceed to one of the
RAC ones, the one that has the most publicity at this point in
time. That is the complaint that you filed with the Architect
of the Capitol regarding a condition of the Capitol complex
utility tunnels. Now this is the first time that OOC has filed
a complaint under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. You
have filed other complaints, but this is the first one under
that act.
Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
Senator Allard. Why did the OOC believe it necessary to
file a complaint?
Mr. Eveleth. Well, my predecessor, as you know, issued a
citation back in the year 2000. And when I came on board in
2003, my intent was to determine which were the most hazardous
areas. And the first areas that we began to look at were areas
that had not been inspected at all in the past. And I wanted to
be sure what was going on there.
And in 2005, we began, when we had additional resources
that we did not have before, we began our inspection of the
Capitol Power Plant tunnels and the Capitol Power Plant itself,
because that was an area where a citation had been issued
previously. And what we discovered in the course of that, that
while some work had been done, in effect very little work had
been done. That is to say, in 2000 a contractor that had been
inspecting the tunnels under the engagement of the Architect of
the Capitol--that contractor identified areas within the
tunnels that needed to be fixed within 1 year, immediate
attention, as well as other ones that had to be done within 5
years.
What we discovered in our inspection was--and they were
also required to monitor the progress of those things, because
they continued to deteriorate. Those tunnels are very hot. They
go up to 130 degrees, some of the tunnels, and they are also
damp. And that combination causes rust. And the rust in the
rebar that is under the cement, it expands as a result of
rusting. And whole sections can and have delaminated. That is,
they have fallen down. And smaller areas have spalled. So that
is a very serious situation. And the contractor said, ``You
need to do these things within a certain period of time.''
Senator Allard. Is that what the original contractor said
in 2000?
Mr. Eveleth. That is what the original contractor said,
right, back in 2000. Our citation back in 2000 basically
tracked what that contractor had found and said to fix these
issues. Continue to monitor, fix the safety communication
system so that people within the tunnels can notify the people
outside the tunnels, if they have to get out, if there is an
emergency, and also to assure that there were sufficient number
of egress points so they could be rescued in the event of a
collapse or injury or what have you.
And when we went through the tunnels in June 2005, we
discovered that the communications system, although it had
initially been improved, was not working properly. And not all
the areas were covered by the communications system.
A number of the egress points had been welded shut during
past years. And there were not--there was an insufficient
number of egress points. And finally, they had not completed
the repairs or made any attempt to do the repairs in most of
the areas that had been identified by the contractor.
We met with the Architect of the Capitol, as we do monthly,
that is to say, representatives of the Architect of the Capitol
and described the problem. They gave us a tentative mitigation
plan, which we examined. And we reached the conclusion--and I
told the Architect about this as well--we reached the
conclusion that it was insufficient. And it was insufficient in
at least two respects.
In one respect, it was insufficient because insufficient
monies were going to be reprogrammed or were going to be asked
for in this fiscal year. I think less than $4 million was being
requested. Whereas the contractor back in 2000 had said it will
be at least $13 million in order to just do the concrete, to
prevent the spalling of the concrete and things like that. So
we knew that an insufficient amount was being requested. And
therefore, it would not be possible to do all the repairs
within short order.
And the other aspect of it that was of most concern to us
was that there were no intermediate measures that were being
undertaken or proposed by the Architect until the full repairs
could be made. And there was no suggestion about putting in
netting or any other kinds of things that might be able to be
done to protect the workers.
And because of that, we decided that it was necessary to
file a complaint.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. I am sorry if that is an overlong answer.
Senator Allard. No, we needed that detail. Thank you.
The question, then, is what kind of follow up do you have?
This has gone on for 6 years now.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. Well, 5\1/2\ years. I have been an
inspector myself, and I always would say I will be back in 1
month and see how you are doing. Why was there not that kind of
follow up?
Mr. Eveleth. I cannot answer that entirely, because I was
not on duty at that time. But what I can tell you is that under
the citation, the Architect was supposed to have completed the
repairs during the following fiscal year.
Senator Allard. So we were just taking the word of the
Architect that the work had been done?
Mr. Eveleth. No, no, sir, no. I am saying that they had a
couple of years in order to do the work.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Eveleth. And then we would go back and see whether they
had done the work.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Eveleth. There was not a continuing reporting process.
That is number one.
Two, we did not have the resources, frankly, to do all the
inspections and to follow up on all these things until--as I
say, when I got on duty, my primary interest was to look at
those violations and citations that looked the most serious and
those that had not been inspected at all. And so I turned to
that.
Now should we have done more? Absolutely we should have
done more. And now we are in a position to do more. And that is
what our whole intention is to do by this RACS system, is to be
able to identify those violations that are the most serious in
terms of likelihood of occurrence and likelihood of injury to
people. And that is going to be our emphasis.
Senator Allard. And do you have a system of tracking these
violations now within the Office of Compliance?
Mr. Eveleth. We do now.
Senator Allard. When did you put that into effect?
Mr. Eveleth. Pardon me?
Senator Allard. When did you put that into effect?
Mr. Eveleth. We asked for that, I believe it was, for our
fiscal year 2005 budget. And then we have been in the process
ever since of loading into that tracking system not only our
current inspections--that is, when the inspectors go out, they
come back to the Office, they load it into our system, and it
says exactly where the violation is, the RAC number, what code
section is being violated, and when the employing office or the
Architect will abate it. And then we analyze that data, and we
will go back as soon as we have the information from them and
tell them, yes, we think that is appropriate or no, you have to
speed that process up.
But thank goodness for that appropriation, because when you
are talking about 10,000 violations, plus what we have found in
earlier years, it is impossible to keep track of it without
some kind of a solid database.
Senator Allard. You do. And you have to prioritize.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. As an inspector, if I found a serious
violation, I would say I will be back in 2 weeks or I will be
back in 30 days----
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard [continuing]. To follow up on things. If it
was less serious, I would say, well, I will pick it up in a
couple of months and see how you are doing.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. So it seems to me that if it is a RAC one,
it needs to be followed up a little more closely than if it is
some other less serious violation.
Mr. Eveleth. Absolutely. And what we do, when our
inspectors go in and they see a RAC one situation, they
immediately issue a notice of serious deficiency and tell them
to fix it. And we follow up on all those RAC ones right away.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. Now obviously if you have a situation like the
tunnels, that is not something that can be fixed like that.
Senator Allard. No. I understand that.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. We are doing our best to respond to that,
by the way, if you noticed.
Mr. Eveleth. Right. And we greatly appreciate that.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Eveleth. That is critical.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL ABOUT THE TUNNELS
Senator Allard. Apparently your office is involved in a
legal proceeding to address the complaint with the Architect of
the Capitol, I understand.
Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
Senator Allard. What is the status of that process? And how
do you expect it will conclude?
Mr. Eveleth. Well, we are now in the process of--we have
submitted position papers, both sides. The hearing officer has
been appointed. We will be setting out our respective witnesses
and all the pretrial stuff that goes with that.
Senator Allard. This is a hearing procedure----
Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Using a hearing officer, not a
full-blown court case. Is that right?
Mr. Eveleth. Well, the process is this: A hearing officer
is appointed by the Executive Director of the Office of
Compliance. A full litigation proceeds with discovery and so
forth. There is then a hearing before a hearing officer, who
issues a report. That report then may be appealed. The results
of his order in this case will be appealed to the board of
directors of the Office of Compliance. And then the
dissatisfied party may go to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit. So it is an administrative proceeding
before the Office of Compliance, but subject to appeal to the
court.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL PLAN TO REMEDY TUNNEL ISSUES
Senator Allard. Now, has the Office of Compliance had an
opportunity to review the Architect's plan that was submitted
on April 10, to both Senator Durbin and myself to remedy the
tunnel problems?
Mr. Eveleth. There was an excerpt given to us, I believe,
last week. And later last week, we asked the Architect to
provide that to us.
Senator Allard. That is, almost 30 days after we received
it, it was given to you?
Mr. Eveleth. Right. And we just received it this morning.
So I have not had a chance to look at it yet. But we were asked
by the Architect's Office to respond to that. But as I said, we
just got it this morning.
Senator Allard. Okay. I am surprised that he did not allow
you to review that before he submitted it to the subcommittee.
Mr. Eveleth. Well, I believe the position of the
Architect's counsel was that because we were in litigation,
they were not going to share that information with us, and that
was really something that should be governed by the discovery
under the proceedings that are now before the hearing officer.
Senator Allard. When did the litigation get filed?
Mr. Eveleth. February 28.
Senator Allard. The 28th.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. So their immediate response is not to talk
to you after that litigation is filed?
Mr. Eveleth. Well, I think there could be more
communication, yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Yes. So you would have preferred that they
communicated with you at least before they submitted the plan
to us.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. As a consequence, we do not know how you
really feel about that evaluation because you just got it
yesterday.
Mr. Eveleth. Right. Today.
Senator Allard. Today?
Mr. Eveleth. Right. This morning. That is correct.
Senator Allard. You did not have a chance to review it for
this testimony.
Mr. Eveleth. No, I did not.
Senator Allard. I would like to get your evaluation on that
as soon as possible. As soon as you do get a chance to evaluate
it, would you send it to the subcommittee as part of your
response for this hearing?
Mr. Eveleth. Yes, indeed.
[The information follows:]
As was discussed at the hearing, that report was not provided to
the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) until the morning of the
hearing. We are attempting to provide overall comments to the abatement
plan itself, but also to the specific questions you posed. This is
based on the assessment of the members of our staff and our contract
safety consultants as well as a recent summary briefing by the staff of
the Architect of the Capitol on May 11, 2006, respecting the AOC plan.
The Architect's plan raises complex technical questions that this
office will need to address with respect to the adequacy of the
measures proposed to be undertaken, both in the short and long term, to
correct the hazardous conditions. This will require the services of
structural engineering firms and other experts in order to make these
assessments. Since this office does not presently have on hand the
necessary technical expertise to evaluate the AOC plan, it is in the
process of interviewing experts for these purposes. Accordingly, this
should be considered to be a preliminary report. With this caveat,
however, the OOC is fully supportive of the emergency supplemental
budgetary support to fund the AOC plan.
We met with representatives from the AOC's safety, engineering, and
tunnels staffs on May 11, 2006, to provide further explanation of the
report. The AOC's report (on page 42) provides immediate and mid-term
estimates of costs exceeding $117 million. While that estimate provides
a breakdown of costs for each tunnel for fiscal year 2006, 2007, and
2008, it does not provide a similar breakdown for each program area
(i.e., asbestos abatement, communications upgrade, egress improvements,
etc.). At the meeting with the AOC officials, we became aware that
additional financial sheets existed that would provide this
information. The AOC provided those figures to the OGC on May 16, 2006,
and they are currently being reviewed by this office.
The Architect's abatement plan provides a plan of action, not only
for the conditions identified in the Complaint, dated February 28, 2006
(falling concrete, emergency communications, and emergency egress), but
also for those conditions identified in Citations 60 and 61 (asbestos
and heat stress).
Comments on the Abatement Plan
At our meeting with the AOC on May 11, 2006, Susan Adams, Director,
Safety, Fire and Environmental Programs for the AOC, noted that the
abatement plan was developed by the AOC in a 10-day period immediately
following their March hearings before the Appropriations Subcommittee
and in response to specific requests from Senators Durbin and Mikulski.
This fact raises two concerns. First, the Report indicates that even
though the Architect was aware of the serious conditions in the tunnels
as a result of Citation 24 issued in CY 2000 and the repeated inquiries
from OOC inspectors on behalf of the tunnels workers during the 108th
inspections, the original fiscal year 2007 budget request from the AOC
identified only $1.8 million to be reprogrammed in fiscal year 2006 and
$1.75 million in fiscal year 2007 for the correction of the hazards and
tunnel maintenance. That is a very small percentage of the amount now
identified as necessary to correct these significant hazards. Second,
we are concerned about the accuracy of both the monetary and time
allocations assessed for the individual elements of the abatement plan.
While we are certain that the AOC made every reasonable and good faith
efforts to prepare reasonable estimates, past experience would indicate
that estimates developed under such conditions may not necessarily
prove to be accurate either in terms of the length of time or the
amount of resources it will take to effectively abate the hazards,
especially since the contracted for condition assessments have not been
completed, and the full extent of remedial measures necessarily have
not been determined. Therefore, both interim and long-term measures
proposed by the AOC plan may be inadequate to fully protect the tunnel
workers, and may consequently place them at further risk.
In addition, we believe that parts of the AOC's abatement plan do
not provide adequate interim protective measures. For example, one
interim measure involves the Construction Management Division of the
AOC (now Construction Division) conducting visual inspections in order
to identify those areas where the risk of falling concrete is most
severe. Prior consultant reports indicate that visual inspections may
not adequately identify all areas of potential delamination and
spalling. The CD is tasked with removing concrete sections at risk of
falling. This is a cumbersome and time consuming process. Workers must
erect structures to protect the piping system from falling concrete
pieces, and the small, confined spaces make access to the spalling
concrete difficult. Therefore, it is unlikely that these interim
measures can be completed by the end of the calendar year as estimated
by the AOC. The longer this process takes, of course, the longer tunnel
workers and others will be exposed to this serious hazard. Additional
information should be sought from the AOC to ascertain whether
sufficient resources are being dedicated to this task.
Under the AOC plan, hazards in the Y tunnel will be among the last
to be permanently fixed. The study which will advise whether the Y
tunnel should be replaced or repaired is scheduled to be completed by
the end of fiscal year 2006. However, if the recommendation is made to
replace the tunnel, then another study will be required to determine if
other options, such as alternative sources of power for the buildings
serviced by the Y tunnel, are available. That study is not anticipated
to be completed until at least the middle of 2007. Again, because of
the lack of sufficient egress points, the high heat levels, and the
advanced state of deterioration in this tunnel, we are concerned about
the adequacy of interim measures to protect workers using this tunnel.
In the abatement plan, the AOC requests approximately $14 million
for complete asbestos removal in the tunnels and the installation of
new insulation. The OOC endorses this approach in theory. GAO
accurately testified to the Appropriations Subcommittee on April 27,
2006, that the industry standard calls to leave asbestos in place,
unless it is going to be subject to further damage, or access is needed
for maintenance. During that hearing, however, neither GAO nor the AOC
discussed a principal justification for complete removal of asbestos in
additional areas of the tunnels where the steam pipes generate
excessive heat levels that adversely affects the integrity of the
tunnels and the health and safety of tunnel workers. These adverse heat
conditions only serve to exacerbate the problems already present
causing further deterioration and spalling of the concrete. We are
informed by the AOC that by replacing the current asbestos coverings
with other types of insulation, the temperatures in tunnels could be
significantly reduced. Therefore. the hybrid approach of removing only
damaged or friable asbestos and the asbestos found in the excessively
hot areas, therefore, may not be effective from either an abatement or
cost effectiveness standpoint. Accordingly, we believe that before a
decision is made with respect to adopting the hybrid approach this
issue should be carefully studied.
Of particular concern is the fact that the abatement plan provides
no mechanism for the sharing of information with the Office of
Compliance which is responsible for assuring that the violations set
forth in the underlying citations are fully abated. The General Counsel
is responsible for monitoring abatement. In order to provide
appropriate oversight and evaluation of the effectiveness and progress
of the abatement measures, the AOC must make continuously available
full access to the information produced by the AOC and its contractors.
This is an area where this office can be of assistance in providing
independent analyses and assessments for the Subcommittee.
Comments to Specific Questions
We were asked to address those priorities that are most urgent and
those that could be dealt with at a later time.
While all of the conditions addressed in our Complaint and
Citations 60 and 61 are significant, in our judgment the highest
priority must be given to those hazards that create the most serious
and imminent risk of harm. First and foremost are those measures that
protect the tunnel workers from falling concrete. Second, is protection
from friable asbestos exposure. Finally, are those risks that are
exacerbated as a result of the heat stress.
Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults As of May 2, 2006
A.What has the AIR SAMPLING shown so far?
1. We have reviewed 79 ``valid'' sample results provided to us by
the AOC.
--``Valid'' means samples that were not overloaded, voided or field
blanks.
2. Nine (9) of these sample results exceeded 0.1 fiber per cubic
centimeter; however, only one employee's exposure exceeded 0.1 fiber/cc
after the results were adjusted for time.
--0.1 fiber/cc is the OSHA permissible exposure limit (``PEL'') for
an 8-hour time-weighted average (``TWA'').
--``Adjusted for time'' means time-weighted or averaged for an 8-
hour period.
3. The one employee whose ``time-weighted'' sample exceeded 0.1
fiber/cc had a TWA exposure of 0.30 fiber/cc averaged from the two (2)
samples of his exposure for that day.
--That employee was an AOC inspector, but it is not clear from the
monitoring records what he was doing that produced a much
higher exposure level.
4. That employee's 30-minute exposure (3.49 fiber/cc) exceeded the
excursion limit.
--The excursion limit (``EL'') is another OSHA PEL for asbestos; the
EL limits 30-minute exposures to 1.0 fiber/cc.
5. The documentation records did not have sufficient detail to
explain why this worker's exposure was significantly greater than the
other employees' sample results.
6. The OOC performed five samples on Tunnel Shop employees last
week.
--The ``preliminary'' results for both time-weighted averages and 30-
minute excursions have been less than the OSHA PELs.
--``Preliminary'' means we have received facsimile results from the
OSHA laboratory but do not have the formal confirmation of the
results.
7. The OOC monitoring for the Tunnel Shop is not complete.
--During the sampling done last week, Tunnel Shop employees were
performing escort duties, tracing circuits and walk-through
duties.
--These duties would not be expected to disturb the asbestos and
create large exposures.
--The OOC intends to sample Tunnel Shop employees during repairs and
when they use equipment likely to disturb asbestos.
--These tasks occur intermittently; therefore, it might take some
months before the OOC's sampling has been completed.
B. Is the personal protective equipment (PPE) used in the tunnels
adequate?
1. From the sample results done so far, so good. The ``half-face''
respirators and Tyvek coveralls (which also cover the shoes) provide
adequate protection for these levels.
--``Half-face'' respirators seal across the top of the nose and don't
cover the eyes.
--``Full-face'' respirators seal across the forehead and shield the
eyes.
2. OSHA requires different types of respiratory protection for
higher exposure levels.
--Half-face respirators may be used if exposures don't exceed 10
times the PEL.
--The highest exposure (time-weighted and excursion) is 3 to 3.5
times the PEL.
3. If future samples (done during operations that disturb asbestos
more than the samples taken to date) exceed 10 times the PEL, full-face
respirators would need to be used.
--Higher levels would require even more protective respirators.
--If levels exceed 10 times the PEL, then (at least) full-face
``powered-air purifying'' would be needed.
--Levels higher than 100 times the PEL would require supplied-air
respirators operated in the pressure demand mode.
--The highest levels (more than 1,000 times the PEL) would also
require an auxiliary self-contained breathing apparatus (often
called an ``escape bottle'').
C. What DECONTAMINATION is required?
There are two sets of requirements for decontamination.
1. One set is for workers who maintain the tunnels and the
equipment within the tunnels.
--Hygiene requirements for these workers are found in the General
Industry Standard [Sec. 1910.1001].
2. A second set of requirements for hygiene is found in the
Construction industry standard [Sec. 1926.1101]
--The definition of construction work [Sec. 1926.32(g)] lists
``construction, alteration, and/or repair.''
--Workers who are abating the asbestos, performing cleanup associated
with abatement activities, or performing construction,
alterations and/or repair must comply with the Construction
Industry requirements.
D. What decontamination does the general industry standard require for
asbestos?
The General Industry requirements for ``hygiene facilities and
practices'' lists the following required elements for employees who are
exposed above a TWA or EL:
--Clean change rooms must be provided with separate storage areas to
prevent street clothes from being contaminated from protective
clothing and equipment.
--Showers must be used, at least at the end of the shift.
--Employees required to shower must not wear clothing or equipment
outside the workplace during the shift.
--Lunchroom facilities with positive pressure, filtered air supply
must be readily accessible to employees.
--Employees must wash their hands and faces before eating, drinking
or smoking.
--Employees must not enter lunchroom facilities with protective work
clothing or equipment unless surface asbestos fibers have been
removed.
E. What decontamination is required by the construction industry
standard?
1. The Construction Industry standard [Sec. 1926.1101(j)] has
different ``hygiene facilities and practices'' required for different
types of asbestos work.
2. The most stringent requirements are for ``large Class I'' jobs.
--``Class I'' work involves removing thermal system insulation or
surfacing asbestos-containing materials or presumed asbestos-
containing materials (``ACM/PACM'').
--``Large jobs'' involve more than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet
of thermal system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM.
3. The less stringent requirements are for ``small'' Class I jobs,
and for Class II and Class III jobs where exposures exceed a PEL or
where exposures have not been determined.
--``Small jobs'' involve less than 25 linear feet or 10 square feet
of thermal system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM.
--Class II work involves removing ACM other than that in Class I.
Examples include: wallboard, floor tile, roofing, siding, and
mastics.
--Class III work involves repair and maintenance operations where ACM
is likely to be disturbed.
4. Employees doing Class IV work in a regulated must comply with
the hygiene practices of the other employees in the area.
--Class IV work during which employee contact, but do not disturb,
ACM or PACM, and activities to clean up dust, waste and debris
resulting from Class I, II and III activities.
F. What decontamination is required for ``large'' Class I jobs?
1. Decontamination area must be adjacent to, and connected with,
the regulated area.
The decontamination area must have an equipment room, shower, and
clean room in series.
--Employees must enter and exit through the decontamination area.
2. Equipment rooms must have impermeable, labeled containers to
contain and dispose of contaminated PPE.
-- Employees do not remove their respirators in the equipment room.
3. A shower area must be adjacent to equipment room and the clean
room, unless the employer can demonstrate that this location is not
feasible.
4. Where the shower area is not adjacent to the equipment room,
before proceeding to the shower, employee must either--
--remove contamination from their work suits using a HEPA vacuum, or
--remove contaminated work suits and don clean work suits.
5. A clean change room must be equipped with storage containers for
each employee.
--Employees must change into street clothing in the clean change
rooms, or in a clean change area if a room adjacent to the
equipment room is not feasible.
--Upon entering a regulated area, employees must don PPE and
respirators in the clean room or area.
6. Lunch areas on site must be in areas where exposures are less
than the PELs.
G. What are the decontamination requirements for ``small Class I''
jobs, or ``Class II'' or ``Class III'' jobs where exposures
either exceed a PEL or haven't been determined?
1. An equipment room or area must be established adjacent to the
regulated area, covered by an impermeable drop cloth on the floor or
horizontal working surface.
--The room or area must have impermeable, labeled containers to
contain and dispose of contaminated PPE.
--Area must be of sufficient size for cleaning equipment and removing
PPE without spreading visible contamination beyond the area.
--Work clothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is
removed.
--All equipment and surfaces of containers must be cleaned before
removing them from the equipment room or area.
--Employees must enter and exit the regulated area through the
equipment area.
H. What have our inspectors found regarding decontamination procedures?
1. During an inspection, one of our inspectors observed a briefing
to Tunnel Shop personnel from a safety contractor (Mr. Hedges from
``The Safety Company'') on AOC decontamination policy.
--The stated goal was to use some General Industry and some
Construction Industry requirements; that goal would not produce
a compliant policy.
--The briefing resulted in a discussion of end-of-day showering
versus showering to prevent contamination from spreading into
other campus buildings.
--The only decontamination that our inspectors observed was the
removal of PPE, which had been worn over the work clothes that
are taken home for cleaning.
I. What information is required in monitoring records?
1. Monitoring records must include the following information
[Sec. 1910.1001(m)(1) and Sec. 1926.1101(n)(2)]:
--The date of measurement;
--The operation involving exposure to asbestos which is being
monitored;
--Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their
accuracy;
--Number, duration, and results of samples taken;
--Type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any; and
--Name, social security number and exposure of all employees whose
exposure are represented.
2. The two required items that we have found to be of concern in
the past are:
--The description of the operations lack sufficient detail to
determine the potential sources and pathways of exposure.
--For example, there is no information associated with the single
employee whose exposure is 3 times the PEL to offer an
explanation as to why both of his sample results on that
day were much higher than the others.
--All of the employees whose exposure is represented by a sample are
not documented.
--For example, the descriptions that AOC provided indicated one or
two people were doing the same operations in the same area
and, presumably, their exposures would be similar. The
names of these employees, however, are not identified in
the records.
Senator Allard. Thank you. Now, rather than both your
office and the AOC spending a lot of resources in litigation, I
am interested in focusing on results wherever possible. Can the
Office of Compliance work cooperatively with the Architect to
come up with appropriate remedies to this, or has this
litigation step made that impossible?
Mr. Eveleth. No. I would certainly prefer to do it that
way. I think that is really what should be done. I think we
should be working--we do work--we do meet with the Architect
monthly on other matters, as well. And we have worked fairly
cooperatively with them. And I do not see why it could not be
done in this instance. I also think that we could be working as
well with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), because
we know that they are involved in this, as well. And I would
think that the combined resources of all of us--and as I have
said before, we all lay our cards out on the table, because
this is one entity, this is the legislative branch. This is not
x corporation versus something or other. This is one entity,
and I look forward to working with the Architect and GAO, if at
all possible, in this.
Senator Allard. I think one thing that would help us in
working with him is to set priorities of those items that are
most urgent to take care of and those that could be dealt with
at a later time. We tried to work that out with our emergency
supplemental request. But I think at some point in time we will
ask you that question, and the Architect. So when you are
discussing back and forth with one another, that would be an
important helpful response for this subcommittee.
Mr. Eveleth. We would be certainly pleased to do that. And
that is what we are trying to do.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION APPROVED METHODS FOR
ABATING ASBESTOS
Senator Allard. Very good. Now the Architect of the Capitol
testified last week that they were using Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) approved methods. From what
you understand, are they using OSHA approved methods or not, or
do you need to review the plan before you respond to that?
Mr. Eveleth. Is this with respect to asbestos?
Senator Allard. Yes. That is on the decontamination
procedures.
Mr. Eveleth. Right. Right. Yes and no. We have reviewed
some of the samples that we were provided and the data that
accompanied that. I do not think that we received all the data
yet. And in addition, we are also doing some asbestos testing
ourselves, as an office. There are certain requirements that
are set out under the OSHA regulations. And there are two
problems that we are seeing now, and one is that there is a
lack of a description of the operations, adequate description
of the operations, that the tunnel workers, or whoever it is
that is in the tunnel, could be the CMD people, as well as the
tunnel workers who are doing work in the tunnels.
And there is a lack of sufficient detail to determine what
it is that they are doing. That is very important in order to
make a determination about whether the levels of asbestos
exceed the standards. Because you could just be walking through
the tunnel, and it is not--you are not--if you are not engaged
in your usual activity, you are not in a position to judge what
the degree of risk is.
And this is very important because the amount of protection
that you are required to have, in terms of face masks and other
things like that, come into play, depending on whether or not
you are exceeding the exposure levels or not. If you exceed
them greatly, then you need different kinds of masks than you
would need if you are only exceeding it----
Senator Allard. If I remember his testimony, he talked
about a half face mask----
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard [continuing]. As opposed to a full face
mask.
Mr. Eveleth. There are full face masks there. And there are
others, as well.
Senator Allard. Do you think there might be a need for a
full face mask?
Mr. Eveleth. It would depend on the degree of exposure to
asbestos.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. And if there is a great deal, then you need a
full face mask. And if there is even more than that, then you
need something that actually pumps air, oxygen, into the mask
and so forth.
Senator Allard. So you are not sure that they are complying
with OSHA approved methods at this point. That is the bottom
line. Is that correct?
Mr. Eveleth. I think that would be an accurate way of
putting it. And also, there are issues, I think, that involve
decontamination, that is to say, whether they provide a clean
room for people to take off their work clothes, if there may be
fibers of asbestos on it. There are certain requirements with
regard to taking a shower before they go out of the area and so
forth and so on. And some of those are still questionable.
Senator Allard. Well, when you review his report that you
just received----
Mr. Eveleth. Yes.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Keep that question in mind. If
you could give us a more complete answer back, we would
appreciate that.
Mr. Eveleth. Okay. Happy to.
[The information follows:]
Question. Does the AOC follow OSHA-approved methods with
regard to asbestos, in terms of personal protective equipment
and decontamination procedures?
Answer. The type of personal protective equipment (PPE)
that is required depends on the exposure level. For example, if
the level of exposure does not exceed 10 times the permissible
exposure limit (PEL), half-face mask respirators may be used.
The limited sample data available to date shows the highest
exposure is 3 to 3.5 times the PEL. If this were the highest
exposure, then half-face mask respirators would be adequate.
If, however, future samples were taken during operations that
disturbed asbestos more than the samples taken to date, and the
samples exceeded 10 times the PEL, full-face mask respirators
would be required. See Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels and
Vaults, B.1. below. Because we currently do not have sufficient
data to ascertain whether the PPE now used in the tunnels is
adequate, we cannot definitively determine the amount of
asbestos to which workers are exposed in the course of
performing their usual duties.
With regard to decontamination procedures, based upon
limited inspection, it did not appear that the decontamination
procedures followed by the AOC in April 2006 were fully code-
compliant. As discussed more fully in Asbestos Issues in the
Tunnels and Vaults, pp. 6-8, below, the OSHA General Industry
Standard that applies to workers who maintain the tunnels and
equipment within the tunnels sets forth specific protective
measures for employees who are exposed to asbestos levels above
the PEL. These include providing clean changing rooms with
separate storage areas to prevent street clothes from being
contaminated from protective clothing and equipment, showers,
and limitations upon workers wearing protective equipment in
areas outside the workplace. A second set of requirements is
found in the Construction Industry Standard. We understand from
recent discussions with the AOC that it will be revising its
decontamination procedures to bring them into compliance with
OSHA requirements.
AIR SAMPLING
Senator Allard. Now, unfortunately, the Architect of the
Capitol has not consistently and systematically sampled the air
in the tunnels for the presence of asbestos. And as a result,
we have no documentation on what exposure there may have been
in the past. Is AOC currently using appropriate methods of
sampling? Can you answer that question?
Mr. Eveleth. I would prefer, if I could, to defer to submit
this afterward, because I would rather use the knowledge of my
safety experts on that. And they could give you a much more
detailed and----
Senator Allard. That would be fine.
Mr. Eveleth [continuing]. Precise answer. Because I am a
lawyer, as you know, and----
Senator Allard. Okay. I will give you some time to do that.
I am wondering is it unreasonable to request that you respond
back to our concerns within 10 days?
Mr. Eveleth. I think we could certainly do that.
Senator Allard. Okay. Well, we will expect it in 10 days.
If you cannot, if you would notify the subcommittee----
Mr. Eveleth. I will do so.
Senator Allard. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
[The information follows:]
Question. Is the AOC currently using appropriate methods of
sampling the air in the tunnels for the presence of asbestos?
Answer. Sampling asbestos correctly necessitates collecting
samples under all several scenarios, from those with the most
exposure risk to those with the least. This includes taking
samples under circumstances under which asbestos may be
disturbed and become airborne. In our discussions with the AOC,
it appears that it recognizes deficiencies in the methods it
has employed in taking asbestos samples. Specifically, there
are too few samples, taken under circumstances that are the
least likely to disturb the asbestos, and the monitoring
records lack sufficient detail to determine potential sources
and pathways of exposure. For example, the monitoring is
unrepresentative because the samples we reviewed were not taken
when employees were performing duties such as performing
repairs or using equipment likely to disturb asbestos and
create greater exposures. Specific details follow in Asbestos
Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults, A. 6&7 & I, below.
DISTANCE BETWEEN EGRESS POINTS
Senator Allard. With respect to the new utility tunnel for
the Capitol Visitor Center, we had some discussion on that in
our last hearing as to the appropriate travel distance between
egress points in such tunnels. Now that is a 750-foot tunnel
that has no escape hatches. Is there a safety code that
mandates what the distance should be?
Mr. Eveleth. Yes, there is. And I would--let me give you,
if I may, a brief response to that. And I will also supplement
that, if I may. But it is my understanding, after speaking to
our safety experts is that yes, there is a requirement. And as
we understand it, the distance, there should be an exit at
least every 800 feet, which means--in other words, there would
be a 400-foot travel distance for an employee to get to an
exit. It is every 800 feet if the tunnel is fire sprinkler
protected. In other words, you get a greater distance if there
is a sprinkler in there. If there is not----
Senator Allard. Is that tunnel that was just constructed
fire sprinkler protected?
Mr. Eveleth. We have not inspected that. I do not know the
answer to that. But I do know that that is the requirement. In
other words, there would be 600 feet between exits if it is not
fire sprinklered. It is 800 if it is fire sprinklered.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Eveleth. So that in this instance, it is assuming that
it is not fire sprinklered. It would appear--but, of course, we
have not inspected it. We do not know what it looks like. There
may be something that we do not know about it. So I do not
really want to opine more than I just have.
Senator Allard. Now there seems to be more confusion. The
Department of Labor has their Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and they have a fire code here. It is the NEPA
101 Life Safety Code. If I refer to that document, does that
make sense to you?
Mr. Eveleth. Yes.
Senator Allard. Okay. In that document, in paragraph
40.2.6.1, they say the travel distance measured in accordance
with section 7.6, that is the travel distance to exits, shall
not exceed 200 feet or 60 meters.
Mr. Eveleth. Right. But I believe that there is another
section, which is 40.2.6.3.
Senator Allard. Okay. Well, I think we are confused on the
subcommittee. I am wondering if you can resolve this.
Mr. Eveleth. Certainly.
Senator Allard. And get a memo to us on that.
Mr. Eveleth. Right. Because there is a special exit travel
distance requirement for low and ordinary hazard special
purpose industrial occupancy. That is the way it----
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. And that is apparently a more lenient issue.
Senator Allard. It depends on the type of tunnel that you
are dealing with.
Mr. Eveleth. That is correct. That is correct.
Senator Allard. Okay. Well, if you would work that out.
Mr. Eveleth. Sure.
Senator Allard. And we are interested in making sure that
we are meeting the code with the new tunnel.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. That is the bottom line.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
[The information follows:]
Question. Clarify the travel distances between escape hatch
for tunnels (with and without sprinkler). Which Life Safety
code applies under what circumstances?
Answer. The Life Safety Code was developed to provide
protective measures for building occupants when there is a
fire. However, the main hazard in Capitol Hill utility tunnels
is a steam leak. Although most of the time when safety people
think about a ``travel distance'' issue, they think of fire
safety and the Life Safety Code, unfortunately, there is not a
specific tunnel safety code. Although we are not certain what
standard should apply in steam tunnels, we want to be very sure
we understand what the generally applied practice is. There
probably is an ``industry practice'' for the major tunnel
designers and builders, and we have been received some
preliminary data that indicates it may be about 500 feet, from
exit to exit (point-to-point). We need to ascertain the
industry practice in order to determine if the General Duty
Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act applies in
this circumstance; if there is an industry practice, the
General Duty Clause requires that it be followed.
Some of the remedies in the Life Safety Code to protect
tunnel occupants from fire could actually make conditions in
the tunnels more hazardous, if a steam leak were to occur. For
example, a fire barrier would not help, because it would
compartmentalize sections of the tunnel and cause steam buildup
and intensity. If steam leaks, what the workers need to be able
to do is to run away from the leak and get out of the area or
tunnel. In the case of the Capitol Visitor Center utility
tunnel the only safety item at issue is whether the distance
between the two exits is too great. The tunnel was installed
with only two exits--one at either end, with the distance
between exits of almost 800 feet.
We have had discussions of this issue with the AOC and the
CVC contractors who built this tunnel. A review of the
engineering consultant's assertions to the AOC would appear to
indicate that there is no outside limit to the travel distance
that is required under the Life Safety Code due to the way the
engineering contractor characterized the tunnel. We disagree
with the underlying assertion that unlimited distance is
acceptable, since, among other factors, the industry practice
would suggest otherwise.
What we have been told by the AOC is that installing
another egress point would be expensive and that there is no
money for doing it. This week, the Office of Compliance met
with representatives from the AOC and the CVC contractors, and
explained to them that we wanted to do further research into
the issue and verify what is the ``acceptable norm'' for tunnel
egress, as a matter of industry practice. Until we've completed
our research, the OOC is not taking the position that another
egress is needed in the CVC tunnel, but we do want to find out
what other organizations are doing when they build new utility
tunnels. We anticipate that we will reach a conclusion by the
end of this month, and we will so advise the Subcommittee.
If an additional egress is required, the additional
construction may be done after the CVC has been opened to the
public. Hence, the opening need not be delayed by this
consideration.
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
Senator Allard. As you know, a debate is going on now
between the Architect of the Capitol's fire marshal and the
Capitol Police Board as to the fire alarm system in the Capitol
Visitor Center. Do you have any comments as to how this issue
can be resolved expeditiously, and who ultimately should have
the authority to make the final determination?
Mr. Eveleth. We have not been involved in these discussions
or consulted in these discussions, but I think we are generally
aware of the position of the fire marshal. Our position has
been during our inspections, and this does not deal with the
CVC, but our belief is that, certainly except for the Capitol,
our belief is that if a fire alarm is pulled, then the alarm
should go off. And rather than having it do what it does in the
Capitol, where there is an annunciator board, and the Capitol
Police then go and check to see whether there is actually a
fire or not. And then they come back and do what they need to
do. If there is a fire, obviously they allow the alarm to go
off.
That is a unique situation. And it is unique. And for a
number of good reasons, it is done that way. But it is done
that way because there are a large number of Capitol police
available, which means that they can travel to the location of
wherever that fire alarm has been pulled in short order and get
back and do something about it.
That is not the case with some of the larger office
buildings on the Hill. And that is not the case with the
visitor center, as well. So it would be--our belief is that
when a fire alarm is pulled, that the alarm itself should
sound.
Senator Allard. So your recommendation would be to treat
the Capitol Visitor Center like any of the other large
buildings around and still keep the Capitol under its exemption
status because of the number of officers that are available in
the immediate area.
Mr. Eveleth. That is correct.
Senator Allard. I see. I understand that that is the
position of the fire marshal.
Mr. Eveleth. Right.
Senator Allard. But it is not the position of the Police
Board. Is that correct?
Mr. Eveleth. That is correct. Right. Now your other
question was who should make the decision, I believe.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Eveleth. And normally the decision like that is made by
the authority having jurisdiction, which, of course, is a term
of art in the building industry. And normally that is an
authority that is sort of independent of the parties in the
sense that, for example, if I am a builder and I want to do
something, I either have to follow code or I have to come up
with something that provides the equivalent level of safety and
protection, safety protection. And it is usually some
independent entity that makes that decision.
A number of years ago, a couple of years ago, the Architect
asked to be designated as the authority having jurisdiction, so
that it could in effect waive the prescriptive requirements and
implement its own. This agency notified the Senate that it
objected to that position, because it felt like it needed the
separation between the individual deciding the case and the--I
think that the----
Senator Allard. So the OOC has notified the Senate that
they do not think there is enough distance between the
Architect, as far as personal culpability, I guess, for you to
be happy with the Architect making the decision. Is that right?
Mr. Eveleth. We would not be happy with the Architect being
the authority having jurisdiction over matters of which it is
itself both an advocate for change and approving the change.
And so that was the position we took then.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Eveleth. Our position----
Senator Allard. Now where did that recommendation go to?
Mr. Eveleth. I cannot recall. We received notice that they
had asked for that authority. And we wrote a letter. And I
cannot tell you at this point----
Senator Allard. Well, you had asked through the
appropriation process.
Mr. Eveleth. It could have been. I can dig that up. I just
do not remember off the top of my head.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. But what I am getting at is I think we also
took the position then that the Office of Compliance is a
perfect model for being an authority having jurisdiction. That
is to say, it is an independent entity that can make judgment
about health and safety issues. And I would think that would
also be true in this sort of situation.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. And there is a full method of litigating that,
really, if they object and we would issue a citation, I mean,
our board would decide. And if they wanted to challenge it in
the court, they could do that. Hopefully, it would not come to
all that. But it is the principle that we are talking about.
Senator Allard. Hopefully you would work it out and
quickly.
Mr. Eveleth. Right. Right. We would do it, we would hope to
do it quickly.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Mr. Eveleth. We think the law is pretty clear on this.
[The information follows:]
Question. With regard to the debate between the Fire
Marshall and the Capitol Police Board as to the fire alarm
system in the Capitol Visitor Center, how can this issue be
resolved expeditiously? Who should have the authority to make
the final determination? When and to whom in the Senate did the
OOC recommend that the AOC not be the authority having
jurisdiction (AHJ)?
Answer. Relevant to the question of the proper procedures
to be applied in the operation of the fire alarm systems in the
CVC are the findings by the OOC's General Counsel described in
his biennial report to Congress, Report on Occupational Safety
and Health Inspections during the 108th Congress pursuant to
the Congressional Accountability Act, pp. 19-21 (excerpt
attached). As noted in that Report, under the Fire Code, a fire
alarm system is required that activates a general alarm
throughout a building to alert occupants of fire or other
emergencies.
There are two exceptions to this requirement. First, a
positive alarm sequence is permitted that allows a three-minute
delay in the activation of the general alarm. Trained personnel
are allowed up to 180 seconds to investigate; if the system is
not reset, all alarms are activated automatically. This delay
is intended to permit an investigation to determine whether
there is a false alarm. The AOC Fire Marshal has endorsed the
use of the pre-signal sequence in the Capitol building where
there is a sufficient number of trained officers on duty to
enable them to complete an investigation within three minutes.
The second exception permits a pre-signal system that requires
that the initial fire alarm system be automatically transmitted
without delay to a municipal fire department and an on-site
person to respond to a fire emergency. The specific
deficiencies in the existing fire alarm system procedures in
the House and Senate office buildings are discussed in detail
in the Report.
With regard to who should have the authority to make the
final determination on this and other issues, we noted some of
this agency's concerns in a letter to the Honorable C.W. Bill
Young dated February 20, 2004 (copy attached). Although the
Life Safety code does have not any conflict of interest
restrictions, other building codes do place such restrictions
on the official enforcing the code. If the Appropriations and
relevant Oversight Committees determine that the Office of
Compliance should be specifically designated as the authority
having jurisdiction over these matters or to resolve disputes
between other entities, the Office is well-situated to handle
such responsibilities. Indeed, under the Congressional
Accountability Act, the Board of Directors of the Office of
Compliance is designated to serve as a neutral forum for
resolving all disputes arising under the CAA, subject to court
review.
In particular, Congress vested the Board with the authority
to determine whether a modification in the application of a
health or safety standard is warranted because of special
circumstances. In particular, by virtue of Sec. 1341(c)(4) of
the CAA, employing offices may request from the Board of
Directors of the Office of Compliance variances from the health
and safety standards otherwise applicable by showing that the
alternative proposed would provide a place of employment which
is as safe and healthful as required by the standard from which
the variance is sought. Procedural Rules of the Office of
Compliance, Sec. 4.26 (b)(4). Alternatively, the citation and/
or complaint procedures under the Office of Compliance's
Occupational Safety and Health Act jurisdiction could be
followed to make a final decision on the issue.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony. You have been
helpful.
Mr. Eveleth. Thank you.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. JAMES, PUBLIC PRINTER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MIKE WASH, CHIEF TECHNICAL OFFICER
STEVE SHEDD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Senator Allard. We will go to the next panel now. Our next
panel will be the Government Printing Office.
I want to welcome Mr. Bruce James and his team. GPO is
requesting $151 million, an increase of $29 million over the
current year or a 24-percent increase. The increase is in part
due to the requirement to update the U.S. Code over 6 years, as
well as some initiatives to further modernize the agency.
Mr. James, you have accomplished much in your 4 years as
Public Printer, and we appreciate your service. You have a
great deal to be proud of, including reversing the trend of
annual losses at the Government Printing Office, revamping the
agency into, as you put it, a 21st century digital platform
capable of addressing ongoing technological changes in how
information is processed and disseminated, and developing new
business lines, such as the electronic passports.
You will be a tough act to follow. And we hope you will
stay on in the Government Printing Office until the President
can find a suitable replacement. We look forward to reviewing
the various initiatives you have requested for fiscal year 2007
and a status report of your efforts to make further
improvements to modernize the Government Printing Office.
You may proceed with your testimony now, Mr. James.
OPENING REMARKS OF BRUCE R. JAMES
Mr. James. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Good morning.
Mr. James. I have a statement I would like to submit for
the record.
Senator Allard. I will ask unanimous consent. Without
objection, we will do that.
Mr. James. Thank you. And I will make a few opening
remarks. But before I do, I would like to introduce two of my
colleagues at the table with me. The first is Mike Wash, who is
the Chief Technical Officer of the Government Printing Office.
Mike came in about 2 years ago to join us and has the
responsibility for evaluating new technologies that are coming
down the road that could impact Government printing,
particularly the dissemination of Government information.
He also has a responsibility for the development of what we
are calling the future digital system, which is the system that
will ingest all Government information and then be in a
position to reprocess that information and send it to the
Internet or send it out for printing or however else in the
future someone might want to use it.
I also have with me Steve Shedd, who is the Chief Financial
Officer of the Government Printing Office. Steve has been with
us for nearly 3 years now. He came to us after experience in
the private sector both with private and public companies as a
chief financial officer. And they will assist me, if you ask me
any tough questions.
Now as I was sitting in the audience, Mr. Chairman, I could
not help but observe your shirt. And, you know, some people
might just say, well, this is just another shirt with, you
know, a suit. But as I sat out there, I was trying to think of
the exact mix of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black that I would
use to print that shirt, to reproduce it. And, you know, that
got me thinking that much of what we do at the Government
Printing Office is just that subject, that there is a certain
mix of colors that we would use in printing ink to reproduce
that shirt accurately.
That would be analog printing, of course. But interestingly
enough, if we presented it in a digital form on a TV set or on
a computer screen, there would be a different set of primary
colors involved with it. And I think what has happened here not
only in the Government, but what has happened in the
information industry, is that for many, many years we went
along as if everything would be printed. So all of the
information was gathered. It was maintained. It was coded for
future printing.
And what we found, of course, today is that printing is
just one way of delivering information. As a matter of fact,
much of the Government's information is now being delivered in
digital format, as you are well aware. Last year, the
Government Printing Office put 92 percent of all Government
publications on the Internet. And the 8 percent missing is
because we have not figured out how to do maps and other kinds
of things, but we will get there.
So we are making great progress. There are certain things
that we are focused on, in particular that I am focused on, in
my last months of service. First is the GPO building complex
itself. In terms of square footage, the complex is twice the
size of the Capitol. It is almost the size of the Empire State
Building. It is a very large building complex that was built
for a different purpose than the enterprise that we have today.
At one time, there were nearly 10,000 employees housed in the
Government Printing Office buildings. Today we are down to just
above 2,000. And we do not see that number of employees
climbing greatly.
So we have a facility that is obsolete in every way. Now
rather than come to this subcommittee and to Congress and ask
for public funds to replace that building and re-equip it for
the future, instead we have worked out, I think, a very
ingenious plan for converting the existing real estate we have
into cash that would allow us to build a new building and equip
that building as we need to do without losing title to that
property for the Government.
What is significant about that is that about $35 million of
what we spend each year at the Government Printing Office goes
to the maintenance of this obsolete campus. And it is money
that we would not have to otherwise spend if we were not there.
And, you know, I sit here in front of you asking for a
relatively modest amount of money. But I want you to think
about that $35 million that we are spending each year that we
do not have to spend. If we get on with this building project,
we will be able to actually reduce the request to this
subcommittee for appropriations each year. So any help that you
can give us in helping to move this project along, we would
much appreciate it.
The second very important thing that we are engaged in is
the building of the future digital system, which falls under
Mike Wash. That system, as I mentioned 1 minute ago, is the
future. What it will do is take Government information into the
system. It will not be coded for printing. It will have a
generic coding scheme in it that both identifies the kind of
information it is, whether it is a headline or a paragraph or
what it is.
It also will contain the source, who created the document,
when was it created, that type of information. And it will be
stored in such a way that it will allow us to authenticate the
fact that the information is actually what the author wrote. It
will allow us to preserve that information in perpetuity. And
it will allow us to repurpose that information and send it out
however the Government might require it in the future, or
however a public user might want that information in the
future.
The third thing that I think is very important is that it
is one thing to take the ongoing information of the Government
and be prepared to deliver it digitally. But, you know, we have
a 200-year history. And that history is very important. We have
tons, carloads, trucks, warehouses full of paper all across the
country that represent the legacy documents of the United
States Government.
Now we are very fortunate to have 1,250 library partners in
the Federal depository library system, which has maintained
those books for us in print, and not only maintained those
books, but most importantly have helped the public get the
information from those books.
But our libraries are changing. The entire world is
changing. And we have to be able to go back and digitize that
legacy collection and also make it available over the Internet.
Now we believe we probably can find the funds to do this
ourselves, with not much help from Congress.
The next area that we are focused on is workforce
retraining. We have a lot of people at GPO that are used to the
analog world, those who once set type with linotype machines,
once made plates, once operated offset presses. And I do not
believe they are threatened in any way by the changes that we
are talking about. As a matter of fact, our 23 bargaining units
have been very supportive of the changes that we are making.
And I think the reason is that over our 145-year history we
have been through many technological changes, each of which
made the Government Printing Office stronger. And they see this
as just part of a pattern.
But we owe it to these folks to build on the skills that
they have acquired over the years, to now introduce and train
them in new digital skills. And we are focused on that.
We also are focused on replacing our legacy computer
systems. You hear this, the Appropriations Committee hears
this, almost from every agency. When I walked in the door, I
could not believe the state of the computer systems. I mean,
these were machines that I had not seen in 30 years that were
held together with spit and chewing gum. And as our employees
retire, we had a 81-year-old retire not so long ago, I mean, we
are losing the skills that are required to keep those systems
up to date. So we are in the process of replacing our legacy
computer systems with state-of-the-art equipment that is
properly sized, properly constructed to be able to allow us to
move along in the future. And we are asking for help in regard
to replacing those systems.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And the last thing that we are all focused on, particularly
Judy Russell, the Superintendent of Documents, with me, and
that is working with our Federal depository libraries to create
the Federal depository library system of the future. It is
clear that as we change in the way we process information,
libraries, too, are changing. And we want to make sure that we
are completely aligned with our libraries. These have been very
valuable partners for many years. And we do not want to lose
the value of that partnership, which we believe is helping the
American public find and use Government information.
And that concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce R. James
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Appropriations: It is an honor to be here today to present the
appropriations request of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) for
fiscal year 2007.
Mr. Chairman, this will be the last time I have the privilege of
appearing before you. Over the past three years, with the strong
support of this Subcommittee, we have managed to turn GPO in a new
direction, one that promises a positive future for our great agency for
many years to come. Now, after three and a half years of working to
achieve that result and much more, it is time for me to begin the plans
for return to my home in Nevada. My pledge was to remain as Public
Printer for the 3 to 5 years it would take to reposition GPO for the
future. I have advised the President that I will continue to serve
until a new Public Printer is chosen. I want to assure you that I will
work hard to make a smooth transition of leadership so that GPO does
not miss a step going forward.
2005 results
Since my appointment as Public Printer, we have been transforming
GPO into a 21st century digital platform capable of addressing ongoing
technological changes in how information is processed and disseminated.
Our goal is to provide Government information in the form and
formats our customers want and need in this burgeoning digital era, and
to ensure that the abiding mission of the GPO--Keeping America
Informed--continues to be carried out for generations to come.
A primary order of business has been restoring and maintaining
GPO's financial health. I am pleased to report that our efforts to
modernize and prepare GPO for the future, with Congress's support, are
generating measurable--and ever improving--returns to GPO's bottom
line.
Net income from consolidated GPO operations for fiscal year 2005
increased to $6.1 million from $1.3 million the previous year,
reversing the pattern of losses from the last decade. We also recorded
another reduction to our long-term liability for the Federal workers
compensation program.
Our financial turnaround has also been aided significantly by
efforts to right-size GPO's workforce through voluntary separation
incentive programs supported by Congress. In 2003 and 2004 we reduced
GPO's workforce by 542 positions, resulting in a savings in personnel
compensation and benefits costs of about $38 million annually.
During the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, another incentive
program, which was carried out under the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-447), resulted in a further
reduction of 89 positions. Recurring annual savings from this recent
program will be approximately $8 million commencing October 1, 2006.
Fiscal year 2005 marked a turning point in our transformation
efforts with the release early in the year of our Strategic Vision for
the 21st Century, which was transmitted to Congress and distributed to
GPO's stakeholders in both the public and private sectors.
This document provides a framework for how our transformation
goals--development of a digital content system to anchor all future
operations, reorganization of the agency into new product- and service-
oriented business lines along with investment in the necessary
technologies, adoption of management best practices agency-wide
including retraining to provide needed skills, and relocation of the
GPO to facilities that are sized and equipped to meet our future
needs--will be carried out and funded. During the year we made
significant progress in each of these directions.
The core of our future operations will revolve around a digital
content system that we currently refer to as FDsys, for Future Digital
System. FDsys is being designed to organize, manage, and output
authenticated content for any use or purpose.
With the approval for transferring the unexpended balances of prior
year appropriations to GPO's revolving fund, we secured the majority of
the funds we will need to bring FDsys into operation. In the
development of this system, we are engaging key elements of our
customer community in Congress, in Federal agencies, and in the library
community, and we are working under the guidance of the Joint Committee
on Printing.
We created a new business line for Security and Intelligent
Documents in 2005 that consolidates our longstanding expertise in
security documents and offers a broad range of consultative services to
Congress and Federal agencies attempting to respond to new standards
and statutory requirements in this area. An early product of the unit
was the security printing requested by the Joint Congressional
Committee on the Inauguration to support the first Presidential
inaugural ceremonies since 9/11. This business unit is working closely
with the Social Security Administration, the State Department, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies with secure
and intelligent documents responsibilities.
We also created a new Digital Media Services business line to
provide essential retraining in digital production skills and
eventually generate content from legacy documents for ingest to FDSys.
We are developing an efficient and cost-effective approach to legacy
digitization to be carried out by this new business line, and are
currently engaged in a demonstration project as approved by the Joint
Committee on Printing.
During 2005 we endowed other business lines with new capabilities.
To improve plant production efficiency and broaden the range of product
and service options for Congress and Federal agencies, we invested in a
variety of new color and digital production technologies.
We augmented our expert printing procurement services by partnering
with a nationwide firm to provide innovative new convenience
duplicating and printing services to Federal agencies across the
country. This contracting mechanism features provisions for capturing
Federal documents electronically, which will significantly assist our
efforts to broaden the availability of Federal information for public
access and reduce the incidence of ``fugitive documents.'' We also
significantly increased the dollar limit on our popular simplified
purchase agreements, expanding and simplifying the ability of Federal
agencies to procure products and services directly from lists of pre-
qualified vendors without first having to go through GPO.
Under the leadership of GPO's Superintendent of Documents, we
engaged the depository library community in a dialog to define the
future of the Federal Depository Library Program while continuing to
move the Program toward a predominately electronic basis as required by
Congress. The total number of titles we now make available on GPO
Access (www.gpoaccess.gov) increased to more than 300,000, with an
average of 37 million retrieved every month, and the dollars we now
dedicate to distributing print publications to depository libraries has
fallen by at least 50 percent over the past decade.
In our Sales of Publications Program, we developed a plan to
partner with private sector sales and distribution providers who can
expand Government publications sales offerings to the public,
implementing a key recommendation of a management audit of GPO ordered
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in Public Law 105-55.
The plan would also return a portion of the revenues to GPO. We have
issued a Request for Proposal for these services.
We continued work on our Oracle enterprise system, which will
replace a number of labor intensive accounting and inventory functions
with IT solutions, reducing cost and speeding work throughput. Expanded
employee training opportunities were also made available, ranging from
new offerings on the shop floor to ``transformational leadership''
seminars for all supervisors and managers. Our Digital Conversion
System will also provide new retraining opportunities.
Although the GPO is not subject to the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), we take the spirit and intent of its provisions
seriously, particularly its emphasis on performance measurement. During
the year we worked to design systems to provide quantitative
measurement in evaluating the progress of our strategic and management
initiatives, and in this request we are seeking funds to implement that
system.
Progress toward our goal to relocate the GPO to new facilities
moved ahead in fiscal year 2005 with the delivery of a formal plan for
this project by our expert real estate advisory consultant. The plan,
along with draft legislative language to authorize the project, was
submitted to our oversight and Appropriations Committees accompanied by
legislative briefings. We also began work on a plan to establish an
ancillary production site for passports and other essential Government
documents, and will be consulting further with our oversight committee
on this matter this year.
fiscal year 2007 request
Our fiscal year 2007 appropriations request is designed to provide
for:
--Continuation of our congressional printing and binding operations
and information dissemination services at required levels;
--Essential investment in projects to continue the transformation of
the Federal Depository Library Program to a predominately
electronic basis, by improving the cataloging, preservation,
authentication, and provision of public access to electronic
Federal Government information; and
--Investment in information technology to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of GPO's operations, and completion of the
program we have begun to retrain GPO's workforce to meet
changing technology demands.
Congressional Printing and Binding.--For the Congressional Printing
and Binding Appropriation, which covers printing and related services
for Congress, we are requesting $100,285,000. This is an increase of
$13,076,000 over the level provided for fiscal year 2006. As you know,
the funding level provided for this appropriation in fiscal year 2006
is equal to fiscal year 2005, minus the one percent rescission. The
increase is required to cover mandatory pay and price level changes and
projected changes in specific congressional printing categories based
on historical data, and is partially offset by ongoing improvements in
productivity. Mandatory items include funding for the production of the
2006 Edition of the U.S. Code, which by law is fully updated and issued
every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as well as
required support capabilities residing at the alternative computing
facility. Our request also provides funding to begin investment in a
new generation of publishing systems that will be capable of fully
supporting Congress's current and future information product needs.
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation.--For the Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents, we are requesting
$43,000,000, an increase of $9,996,000 over the level provided for
fiscal year 2006. This appropriation provides for the cataloging,
indexing, and distribution of Government publications to Federal
Depository and International Exchange libraries and other recipients
designated by law.
The increase is necessary for mandatory pay and price level
changes, increased information technology support costs, and
distribution of the 2006 edition of the U.S. Code to depository
libraries and other recipients as required by law. Equally as
important, our request includes funding for essential investments to
sustain our commitment to meeting the changing needs of the Federal
Depository Library Program (FDLP) in the digital era. For fiscal year
2005, 71 percent of all new titles made available to the FDLP were in
online format only, while an additional 21 percent of new titles were
in electronic and one or more tangible formats such as print or
microfiche. Only 8 percent of new were made available in print only. In
other words, 92 percent of new titles in the program were made
available online, whether or not there were tangible equivalents.
As this data shows, the FDLP is now a predominately electronic
program. The funding increase we are seeking will nurture and sustain
the digital transformation of the FDLP, expanding the availability of
the program's resources nationwide while providing for essential
improvements to ensure permanent access and authenticity. The projects
we are proposing include digital conversion of GPO's pre-1976
cataloging records to expand the availability of our online catalog
resource; targeted capital investment for authentication and other
technologies supporting GPO Access; authentication and cataloging of
Web-harvested documents; and essential training for depository
librarians and other user support.
Our request is also designed to advance another key initiative of
our strategic vision for the future. In cooperation with the Library of
Congress and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
we are developing an agreement under which the three agencies will make
a concerted effort to digitize and provide online public access to
Federal documents reaching back to the Nation's earliest days. As a
result of this effort, the comprehensive historical collection of
Federal publications--reports, legislation, congressional proceedings,
executive orders, presidential papers, regulations, and more--will be
available for search and retrieval at the push of a button from any
library, classroom, office, or home. We are now involved in a
demonstration project for legacy digitization.
As our society becomes increasingly electronic, the demand for
access to Government information--including information that until now
has been available only in print--is growing. Several elements of both
the public and private sectors have begun to respond to need for
retrospective digitization to meet that demand and reduce costs to
libraries. These efforts are commendable, but with their proliferation
there is a growing need for an approach that will ensure
standardization, comprehensiveness, and efficiency while preventing
wasteful overlap and duplication of effort. I have met on this subject
with the Librarian of Congress and the Archivist of the United States
and we expect to conclude an agreement on this effort in the near
future. While GPO will fund its role in this effort from available
resources, our request for fiscal year 2007 includes $2 million to
provide data tagging and related technical support for newly digitized
content that is made available to the FDLP.
Revolving Fund.--For GPO's revolving fund, we are requesting an
appropriation of $8,231,000, an increase of $6,251,000 over the level
provided for fiscal year 2006.
This will provide funds to acquire essential information technology
infrastructure and systems development, including risk reduction and
security enhancements, computer-aided manufacturing, replacement of our
antiquated job-cost reporting system, implementation of a Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) compliance system, and other
measures. Our request will also be used to complete the training
program we have initiated with fiscal year 2006 funds to define GPO's
workforce needs, assess the skills of current employees, identify the
gaps, and design and deliver targeted, just-in-time training to close
those gaps. A well-trained workforce and modernized information
technology architecture are prerequisites to implementing our vision of
GPO's digital future.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Appropriations, thank you for all the support you have shown for our
efforts to transform GPO. With your support we can continue our record
of achievement. We look forward to working with you in your review and
consideration of our request.
FACILITY RELOCATION
Senator Allard. Well, thank you for your testimony, Mr.
James. We have just a few questions here.
It appears that your plans to move the Government Printing
Office out of the current facility are not moving along quite
as expeditiously as you would like. If the Government Printing
Office is unable to relocate in the near future, how will that
impact the Government Printing Office's plans to further
modernize its operations?
Mr. James. Well, we are not going to let a building stop
us. I mean, the Government Printing Office is not about a
building. It is about systems and people. And so we are not
about to let a building stop us. But I think this is maybe even
more personal to me as the leader of the GPO. It just to me is
a travesty to allow taxpayer money to be flushed down the drain
the way we are doing this.
I mean, we can do a better job. And that is what I have
been working at, to try and give the taxpayers a better deal on
this. And I know that you have, too. This subcommittee and the
House Appropriations Committee have been working with us all
the way along on trying to get this done, too.
TOP CHALLENGES
Senator Allard. What are the top challenges that you face
or the Government Printing Office faces? And what advice would
you provide for your successor?
Mr. James. Well, I think the things I've talked about today
are the remaining big challenges in front of the Government
Printing Office. The most important things, I think, that I
have done over the last almost 4 years are to make certain we
had the right people in the right positions and then to help
them to develop a long-term strategy that would serve the
American public and serve Congress, and then to help get that
program off and going. And we are there.
The remaining big challenges include the redevelopment of
the building. And, you know, it is not just a matter of getting
congressional approval to proceed. Once we have that approval,
there is a big challenge of finding a new location for the GPO
and hiring an architect and building a building and equipping
that building. So that is probably the largest challenge.
And I think that everything surrounding digital information
is the other challenge. I think Mike Wash and his team are
doing a superb job of building the system, but it will require
continual attention and strict attention to make sure it is
successful.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Senator Allard. Given the budget constraints we are faced
with, it is unlikely that we are going to be able to come up
with a 24-percent increase. It will probably be something less
than that. And as I have asked of all the other agencies, I
hope you can give us a prioritized list, because that would be
very helpful as we negotiate with the House on this, if we know
which things are most important to you. I would hate to think
that in the negotiating process we gave up the most valuable
for something of less importance.
Mr. James. Sure.
Senator Allard. So it would help us to make sure that your
agency gets its badly needed resources in the proper priority.
Mr. James. We would be pleased to do that. And I think we
have a good relationship with staff and would be pleased to
work with them and help them understand the priorities.
Senator Allard. If you could do that, for the record, we
would appreciate it.
Mr. James. Yes, sir, be happy to.
[The information follows:]
GPO Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Priorities
congressional printing and binding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 Enacted Level............................. $87.2
Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level........................... 100.3
------------
Total Increase Originally Requested.................. 13.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately $12.1 million is needed for essential requirements,
including funding for mandatory pay and price changes to cover
contractual wage agreements and inflation, an adjustment to the fiscal
year 2006 base to cover a projected shortfall for fiscal year 2006
(which will be funded from unexpended balances of prior year
appropriations transferred to the revolving fund last year),
anticipated workload increases in several congressional printing
categories based on projections from historical data, and the
production of official and bylaw copies of the 2006 edition of the U.S.
Code in accordance with statutory requirements.
Additional requirements of $1 million include funding for a planned
replacement of GPO's Microcomp composition system, which will require
the approval of the Joint Committee on Printing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Requirements:
Mandatory pay and price changes........................ $2.3
Adjustment to fiscal year 2006 base.................... 1.4
Anticipated workload increases......................... 3.7
Production of 2006 U.S. Code........................... 4.7
------------
Total................................................ 12.1
============
Additional Requirements: Microcomp replacement............. 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
salaries and expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 Enacted Level............................. $33.0
Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level........................... 43.0
------------
Total Increase Originally Requested.................. 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of the mandatory pay increases and the printing
and distribution of copies of the 2006 edition of the U.S. Code to
depository libraries, GPO's requested increase of approximately $10
million covers projects directly related to the broad range of
information life-cycle activities required by the congressionally-
mandated transition to a primarily electronic Federal Depository
Library Program (FDLP) and to building the infrastructure to support
it. Because these activities are interrelated and support each other,
GPO must proceed with multiple priorities to meet Title 44 mandates in
the online information environment.
If funding at the originally requested level is not an option, GPO
will scale back digital initiatives or slow down progress on the
electronic transition rather than pursue one or two priorities to the
exclusion of others. Elimination or more substantial reduction of any
of these activities through funding prioritization will necessitate
consultation with the depository library community.
If appropriations cuts are required GPO could still support its
mission with essential requirements totaling approximately $7.1
million, a 29 percent reduction from the initial request for the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation. These requirements include
mandatory pay and related costs, printing and distribution of the 2006
edition of the U.S. Code for depository libraries, expenses due to
investment in IT and GPO's Future Digital System (FDsys), FDLP training
and user support of FDsys (with funding reduced by 20 percent, or
$265,000, from the original request), conversion of pre-1976 cataloging
records (with funding reduced by 63 percent, or $500,000;
implementation of this project will be modified from a single multi-
year contract to multiple single-year contracts, with requests for
funding to be made in subsequent years), cataloging of web-harvested
documents (with funding reduced by 10 percent, or $63,000),
authentication of web-harvested and digitized documents (with funding
reduced by 10 percent, or $45,000), and capital expenses associated
with authentication and access.
Additional requirements shown below total approximately $2.9
million. They include funds for data tagging and processing new
digitized content for access (while a demonstration project for legacy
digitization has been authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing,
GPO does not yet have authorization for the full legacy digitization
project, and if not provided for fiscal year 2007, funding could be
requested in subsequent years once the project is approved), as well as
restoration of the reductions shown above for FDLP training and user
support for FDsys, conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records,
cataloging of web-harvested documents, authentication of web-harvested
and digitized documents, and capital expenses associated with
authentication and access.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Requirements:
Mandatory pay and related costs..................... $0.8
U.S. Code 2006 edition, printing and distribution... 2.0
Expenses due to investment in IT and FDsys.......... 1.2
FDLP training and user support of FDsys............. 1.1
Conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records........... .3
Cataloging of web-harvested documents............... .6
Authentication of web-harvested and digitized .4
documents..........................................
Capital expenses associated with authentication and .7
access.............................................
---------------
Total............................................. 7.1
===============
Additional Requirements:
FDLP training and user support of FDsys............. .3
Conversion of pre-1976 cataloging records........... .5
Cataloging of web-harvested documents............... .05
Authentication of web-harvested and digitized .05
documents..........................................
Data tagging and processing new digitized content 2.0
for access.........................................
---------------
Total............................................. 2.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
revolving fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 Enacted Level............................. $2.0
Fiscal Year 2007 Requested Level (Fiscal year 2007 request 8.2
is a total of $3 million for training and $5.2 million for
IT projects; fiscal year 2006 enacted provided $2 million
for training).............................................
------------
Total Increase Originally Requested.................. 6.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the requested increase, approximately $1.0 million is needed for
essential requirements, which represents an increase over the funds
provided for fiscal year 2006 for workforce training and development to
provide GPO employees with the skills needed for GPO's digital future.
Total funds approved for fiscal year 2006 for training were $2 million;
GPO is requesting a total of $3 million for training for fiscal year
2007.
Additional requirements of $5.2 million are requested for high risk
infrastructure replacement to cover 8 projects to mitigate high
technical risk areas, a secure documents system infrastructure to
provide IT support for GPO's secure and intelligent documents business
unit, a computer-aided manufacturing system to integrate GPO's
production systems with IT monitoring, replacement of GPO's outdated
PROBE system that provides job cost tracking, an application
infrastructure to integrate GPO business systems into Oracle, a
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) compliance system to
monitor and evaluate program performance, and a metadata repository to
standardize data used in GPO's business systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Requirements: Workforce retraining............... $1.0
============
Additional Requirements:
High risk infrastructure replacement................... 2.3
Secure documents system infrastructure................. .8
Computer-aided manufacturing........................... .5
PROBE replacement...................................... .5
Oracle application infrastructure...................... .5
GPRA compliance system and implementation.............. .3
Metadata repository.................................... .3
------------
Total................................................ 5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYEE RETRAINING
Senator Allard. Now Congress approved $2 million in the
Government Printing Office 2006 budget for workforce training.
Can you update us on your efforts on that?
Mr. James. You want to know how we spent that money?
Senator Allard. Yes. We want to know what the results are.
Mr. James. I would like to submit the specifics for the
record. But I will give you sort of a general view of what we
have done with this.
In my judgment, the most important thing was to make
certain our 330 supervisors are completely trained in what
being a supervisor is all about. In the past, we moved people
from the workforce that were skilled craftsmen just almost
based on seniority into these, what I call, these leadership
positions without sufficient background and training of what it
takes to be a leader.
So the first thing we did was focus on helping all of our
roughly 330 supervisors/leaders to understand their
responsibilities and what they need to do in a digital world
and actually in a world of today. And we used the strategic
vision document as the working tool of how to get them to
understand what their role was and how to carry this down to
employees.
We then set up a new business unit that we call the digital
media group. And this is the group that will do the conversion
of the legacy documents of the Government into digital
documents. And this will create hands-on training for hopefully
several hundred GPO employees over the next few years as we
complete that digitization. So those are the big initiatives
that were undertaken in the last year. But I will give you a
full explanation of that for the record.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Use of GPO Training Funds
For fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1.9 million
(after rescission) to GPO's revolving fund for workforce
development and training.
Approximately $500,000 has been allocated to a
demonstration project for the digitization of selected legacy
Government documents that has been approved by the Joint
Committee on Printing. The project will train a targeted
element of GPO's workforce in essential digitization skills.
Approximately $100,000 has been allocated to the provision
of training in PC skills, electronic publishing, new pre-press
technologies, customer service improvement, and apprentice
training.
The balance of the funds are for a GPO-wide skills
assessment and implementation of retraining and include the
following: $170,000 for a needs analysis and skills assessment,
$630,000 for classroom training, $270,000 for e-training,
$130,000 for a Learning Management System, and $100,000 for
career transition services.
ELECTRONIC PASSPORT PROGRAM
Senator Allard. What is the status of the electronic
passport program that you are working on with the State
Department?
Mr. James. That is one of the most challenging jobs that we
have had. The State Department is one of our best customers.
And as you know, this is a program that has been mandated by
Congress. And that is to include a biometric chip in all of the
U.S. passports. And the law is requiring that of other
countries, too, that want to have the visa exemption.
We have been working for about 2 years on that program with
the State Department. We actually have working samples out in
the field right now. We are delivering official passports. I
believe in the last couple of weeks, we started delivering
official passports with chips and antennas. We have learned a
lot in this process. We probably have more knowledge than
perhaps any other organization in the country at this point
about what goes into dealing with these chips in a paper
product.
As a matter of fact, we have learned so much that we are
looking at sharing this with other agencies to meet some of
their requirements, both for ID cards and for other kinds of
secure and intelligent documents that the Government will need.
I have come to the conclusion that I think the Government
Printing Office can be of great service to other agencies in
the development and maintaining of a proprietary Government
technology that will help ensure that documents cannot be
counterfeited and they are authentic documents.
We are looking at doing this with some interesting models.
We are looking at getting in the business of producing ID
cards.
Senator Allard. What kind of ID cards?
Mr. James. These are the new ID cards that are required
that have RFD devices in them that will be for all agency
employees. And there we are looking at the possibility of doing
a Government-owned, contractor-operated plant within GPO
facilities. In other words, taking the best advantage of the
private sector and their know-how and how to officially
manufacture, but yet keeping it within a Government facility
for the necessary security protections.
So we have learned at lot. We have made great progress. I
think this will be one of the fast-growing areas in the future
for the Government Printing Office.
Senator Allard. So you actually have it in some passports
now.
Mr. James. Yes, we do.
Senator Allard. Is that part of the trial basis, or is this
now just part of routine procedure in those few that you have
out there?
Mr. James. I think you are asking me to speak for my
customer here, the State Department, on this. And it is my
impression that we are still moving cautiously. You know, with
old U.S. passports, I should say the former passports, we knew
what would happen if somebody left it in the trunk of their car
or ran it through a washing machine. You know, we need more
experience here in what happens in the real world as people use
these devices or these passports, so that we can make certain
that the manufacturing techniques we have used will withstand
as much as they possibly can. So we are moving cautiously on
this one.
FUTURE OF THE DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM
Senator Allard. Thank you. You also said you are engaging
the depository library community in a dialogue on the future of
the depository library system. What is the status of that
effort?
Mr. James. Well, let me put it this way. I think that
together the library community and the GPO have come a long way
in the last 3 years. I began to discuss with the depositories a
little over 3 years ago what I thought was going to be required
in the digital future. And there were, I think it is fair to
say, some real skeptics initially.
But as we have, over the last 3 years, worked so closely
together on taking a look at this, I think that probably it is
best summed up by a letter I think you recently received,
signed by the presidents of the five largest library
associations strongly endorsing the direction that we are
going. And I think that while we do not have a complete
solution yet, I think we are engaged in a very positive way. We
know we cannot please everybody. But it is our intention to get
to the point that we have a consensus within the community of
the best way to go forward with this.
Senator Allard. So you are in the discussion process right
now.
Mr. James. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And you have not decided exactly how you
are going to proceed from this point.
Mr. James. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Allard. Thank you. That is all I need for your
testimony. Thank you very much.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. We wish you well.
Mr. James. Thank you.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD B. MARRON, ACTING DIRECTOR
Senator Allard. Good morning, Dr. Marron. We meet again
today. It seems like we have been seeing each other on a fairly
regular basis here. You are the last panel for this morning. I
would ask that you, Dr. Marron, Acting Director of CBO, to
present your testimony on CBO's $37 million request. This is a
5.5-percent increase over fiscal year 2006 and supports current
services.
Now, Dr. Marron, we understand you have done an excellent
job heading up the CBO since your appointment just a few months
ago. And we appreciate your service. Please go ahead with your
testimony.
Dr. Marron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here today. You have our written statement, so I will try to be
very brief. Let me start by thanking you for your past support
of CBO's budget request, most recently for the 2006 request.
As you know, CBO's mission is to provide the Congress with
timely, objective, nonpartisan information about budget and
economic issues. It has been my great privilege to be with the
agency for about 6 months now and to be Acting Director since
early this year. And just on a personal note I would like to
say I am just incredibly impressed with the enthusiasm and
skill and esprit de corps of the CBO and its people. I feel
like we are doing an excellent job for the Congress. And I hope
to keep that up.
As you say, our fiscal 2007 request is for $37 million,
which would be an increase of $1.9 million over our
appropriation for 2006. It is an increase of 5.5 percent. This
is pretty much a plain vanilla request on our part. There are
no new initiatives. We view it as a current services budget. It
allows us to maintain a level of productivity, allows us to
maintain our 235 FTEs, and hopefully allows us to, you know,
continue the productivity that we have built up in recent
years. Hopefully, it is well documented in our submission.
Our budget is overwhelmingly for people. As we discussed
the other day, about 90 percent of the budget goes toward our
people. And in essence, that is what is driving our budget
request this year. Most of the request is concentrated in
people, both because of benefit increases, because of a cost of
living adjustment (COLA), and because of merit increases that
we would expect to award to people.
In addition, there is a component in there for IT. As you
will recall, last year there was an across-the-board
rescission. We, to get through this year, focused most of that
on our IT budget. We deferred a variety of projects. And so our
budget request in essence has a variety of those investments
coming back in 2007 being funded.
I am happy to say that I believe CBO provides good value to
the Congress and through the Congress to the American people.
It has been true in the past, and we intend to make sure it is
true in the future.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And with that, happy to take any questions.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you, Dr. Marron.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald B. Marron
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to present
the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO).
CBO is a small legislative support agency. Its mission is to
provide the Congress with timely, objective, nonpartisan analyses of
the budget and the economy and to furnish the information and cost
estimates required for the Congressional budget process. That mission
is its single ``program.'' Approximately 90 percent of CBO's
appropriation is devoted to personnel, and the remaining 10 percent, to
information technology, equipment, supplies, and other small purchases.
The total current-services request for fiscal year 2007 is
$37,026,000 a $1.9 million, or 5.5 percent, increase over the
appropriation for fiscal year 2006 (after the 1 percent rescission).
Although CBO's original projected increase from fiscal year 2006 to
fiscal year 2007 was 4.4 percent, this request incorporates CBO's need
to restore resources that were eliminated in fiscal year 2006 by the
rescission.
The requested increase is dominated by $1.7 million for increases
in staff salaries and benefits, which are estimated to grow by 5.3
percent in 2007. CBO's information technology accounts will increase by
$220,000, or 15.6 percent, primarily to restore information technology
funding that was reduced to meet the fiscal year 2006 rescission. The
remainder of CBO's nonpersonnel budget will increase by 1.7 percent to
cover modest inflationary increases in various accounts.
With the requested funds for 2007, CBO plans to continue to support
the Congress in exercising its responsibilities for the budget of the
U.S. government. CBO supports the Congressional budget process by
providing analyses required by law or requested by the Committees on
the Budget, the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on
Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, other committees, and
individual Members. Contributing in various forms, CBO:
--Reports on the outlook for the budget and the economy to help the
Congress prepare for the legislative year, including the
construction of baseline budget projections to serve as neutral
benchmarks for gauging the effects of spending and revenue
proposals;
--Estimates the effects of the President's budgetary proposals on
outlays and revenues, including effects resulting from impacts
on macroeconomic activity;
--Assists the Committees on the Budget in developing the
Congressional budget resolution by providing alternative
spending and revenue paths and the estimated effects of a
variety of budget options;
--Reports on programs and activities for which authorizations for
appropriations were not enacted or are scheduled to expire;
--Estimates the costs of legislative proposals, including formal cost
estimates for bills reported by committees of the House and
Senate, which also identify the costs of mandates on states,
localities, Indian Tribes, and the private sector;
--Conducts policy studies of governmental activities having major
economic and budgetary impacts;
--Provides the Congress with analyses of policy options, but not
policy recommendations, to alter federal outlays and receipts
in the near term and over the longer horizon to help the
Congress make budgetary choices, set priorities, and adapt to
changes in circumstances;
--Constructs statistical, behavioral, and computational models to
project short- and long-term costs and revenues of government
programs and their effects on the economy; and
--Reports on emerging economic developments (such as natural
disasters) and their possible budgetary consequences.
In fiscal year 2007, CBO's request will allow the agency to build
on current efforts specifically, the request:
--Supports a workload of more than 1,700 formal estimates of the
costs of proposed or enacted legislation and of mandates
included in legislation (generally conveyed in about 600
separate documents) and approximately 160 analytical reports
and other products, as well as a heavy schedule of
Congressional testimony;
--Supports 235 FTEs, the same number as in 2006, including an across-
the-board pay adjustment of 2.7 percent for staff earning a
salary of less than $100,000 (which is consistent with the pay
adjustment requested by other legislative branch agencies);
--Funds a projected 5.4 percent increase in the cost of benefits and
funds a combination of promotions and merit increases,
including pay adjustments for staff whose salary exceeds
$100,000 and who therefore do not receive an automatic annual
increase;
--Supports CBO's share of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board (FASAB) budget requirement ($443,025);
--Sustains management and professional training and development
($152,400);
--Maintains and continues development of CBO's financial management
system ($101,390);
--Supports the agency's telecommunications services to the Alternate
Computing Facility ($75,000); and
--Allows for upgrading Microsoft Office software throughout the
agency ($75,000).
Before I close, I would like to point out that over the past two
fiscal years, CBO has streamlined operations while increasing services
to the Congress and meeting ever growing requirements. Those efforts,
which have included working in cooperation with other legislative
branch agencies and other government organizations, have focused on
reducing costs in information technology; library operations; printing
and reproduction; storage services; and financial management, including
payroll processing, auditing, and reporting. Consequently, the fiscal
year 2007 submission requests the funding required for CBO to maintain
its current services.
I would also like to report that CBO received a clean opinion on
its fiscal year 2004 financial statements.
In addition, I would like to state that the agency is committed to
applying many principles of the Government Performance Results Act as
discussed in the Senate's fiscal year 2006 report.
Finally, I would like to thank the Committee for its support of
CBO's 2006 budget request. The funding provided this year will allow
CBO to continue to provide the Congress with vital analyses as well as
enable the agency to make cost-effective investments to enhance
productivity and reduce costs.
PREPARATION OF REPORTS TO CONGRESS
Senator Allard. Now, in the past 2 years, CBO has increased
the number and reduced the preparation time of reports for the
Congress. That is admirable. Would you explain to the
subcommittee how you managed to accomplish that?
Dr. Marron. Absolutely. I would say the key to that really
is good management, to establishing timelines, deadlines, and
encouraging folks to meet those. There are always some
slippages, but, you know, to have guideposts for people to
strive for, and then also to have a culture in which we make a
lot of effort up front to make sure that the projects that we
choose to undertake are ones that we can get through the entire
process to see the light of day, to make sure that we have
requests whenever possible from Members of Congress, and then
just to carry that forward.
So, I would ascribe that essentially to good management.
ONE PERCENT RESCISSION
Senator Allard. Now in fiscal year 2006, a 1-percent
rescission was applied to all the agencies. The one exception
would have been the Department of Veterans Affairs. What was
the impact of that reduction on your activities?
Dr. Marron. The primary impact on us was to defer a variety
of information technology investments, upgrading servers,
upgrading PCs. Some of those have some flexibility in the
timing of those. And we decided to put them out of this year
and push them into next year.
Senator Allard. And that is reflected in this year's
budget?
Dr. Marron. Exactly right. You will see that there is a
larger percentage increase in the IT budget, somewhere in the
11-percent range--and a significant part of that increase is
essentially those investments showing up in 2007.
BUDGETARY ANALYSIS OF DRAFT LEGISLATION
Senator Allard. I see. Now I understand CBO has had a draft
of Senator Lott's legislation to redevelop the Government
Printing Office facility since December. We had a discussion
about that in the panel before you. As I understand it, until
the bill is scored, Senator Lott is reluctant to move forward.
What is the status of your efforts to provide a budgetary
analysis of this draft legislation to the Rules Committee?
Dr. Marron. Our people are definitely working on it. The
proposal raises some challenging issues which raise some nuance
scoring issues, but we are working to expedite and it should be
available quite soon.
Senator Allard. I would urge you move ahead with that. Is
it possible for you to give us a commitment on a date?
Dr. Marron. I cannot right now, but let me check with my
folks back in the office, and I will get back to you.
Senator Allard. Okay. I think it is important for us to get
the Government Printing Office issue settled as fast as we
possibly can. If you can get that to us quickly, we would all
appreciate it.
Dr. Marron. Okay. Absolutely.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Allard. Very good. I do not have any other
questions. You got off kind of easy.
Dr. Marron. So I will thank you for that.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony.
And this subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, May 3, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado:
Opening Statement of.........................75, 167, 199, 223, 269
Questions Submitted by......................................45, 261
Statement of................................................. 1
Ayers, Stephen, Chief Operating Officer, Architect of the Capitol 141
Billington, James H., Librarian of Congress; Chairman of the
Board, Open World Leadership Program, Library of Congress...... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 4
Brown, Beth Hughes, Budget and Finance Officer, Office of
Compliance..................................................... 269
Candelaria, Alma, Deputy Executive Director, Office of Compliance 269
Chrisler, Tamara E., Acting Executive Director, Office of
Compliance..................................................... 269
Prepared Statement of........................................
271........................................................
Summary Statement of......................................... 269
Cylke, Kurt, Director, Books for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped, Library of Congress............................... 1
Doby, Chris, Financial Clerk, Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Senate......................................................... 75
Dodaro, Gene L., Chief Operating Officer, Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 223
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 142
Questions Submitted by......................................50, 263
Eveleth, Peter, General Counsel, Office of Compliance............ 269
Hantman, Alan M., FAIA, Architect of the Capitol..........141, 199, 217
Prepared Statement of........................................ 146
Summary Statement of......................................... 143
Harper, Sallyanne, Chief Administrative Officer, Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 223
Huff, Julia, Chief of Operations, Copyright Office, Library of
Congress....................................................... 1
James, Bruce R., Public Printer, Government Printing Office...... 295
Opening Remarks of........................................... 295
Prepared Statement of........................................
298........................................................
Jones, Mary Suit, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Senate..................................... 75
Livingood, Hon. Wilson, Chairman, Capitol Police Board and
Capitol Guide Service, Capitol Guide Board...................199, 217
Prepared Statements of.....................................200, 218
Statement of................................................. 199
Marron, Dr. Donald B., Acting Director, Congressional Budget
Office......................................................... 309
Prepared Statement of........................................ 310
McGaffin, Chris, Acting Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police
Board.......................................................... 199
Prepared Statement of........................................ 201
Statement of................................................. 201
Mulhollan, Daniel P., Director, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress............................................ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 25
Peters, Marybeth, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 14
Pickle, Hon. William H., Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S.
Senate..................................................167, 199, 217
Prepared Statement of........................................ 170
Statement of................................................. 168
Reynolds, Emily, Secretary of the Senate, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Sen-
ate............................................................ 75
Prepared Statement of........................................ 78
Robfogel, Susan, Chairwoman, Board of Directors, Office of
Compliance..................................................... 269
Prepared Statement of........................................
275........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
275........................................................
Schornagel, Karl, Inspector General, Library of Congress......... 1
Scott, Donald L., Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library of
Congress....................................................... 1
Shedd, Steve, Chief Financial Officer, Government Printing Office 295
Stevens, Tom, Director of Visitor Services, Capitol Guide Board.. 217
Strader, George G., Controller, Government Accountability Office. 223
Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States,
Government Accountability Office............................... 223
Prepared Statement of........................................
233........................................................
Wash, Mike, Chief Technical Officer, Government Printing Office.. 295
Weiss, Mark, Director, Capitol Power Plant, Architect of the
Capitol........................................................ 141
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
Page
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Accomplishments.................................................. 151
Annual Operating Budget.......................................... 149
Architect of the Capitol Chief Financial Officer Selection....... 164
Capital Projects:
Budget....................................................... 148
And the Library Logistics Warehouse Prioritization........... 159
Capitol Visitor Center Budget.................................... 150
Construction Overhead Costs...................................... 161
Contract Management Improvements................................. 164
Dirksen Infrastructure Improvement Project....................... 160
Employee Safety in the Tunnels................................... 158
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget:
Concerns..................................................... 141
Increase..................................................... 154
Government Accountability Office Reports on Power Plant Staffing. 163
Internal Controls Implementation................................. 164
Office of Compliance Complaint................................... 157
Overall Planning Process......................................... 147
Performance-based Budget......................................... 163
Safety Hazards in the Utility Tunnels............................ 141
Senate Office Building Improvements.............................. 150
Stewardship and Prioritizing Projects............................ 146
Tracking Office of Compliance Citations.......................... 159
Tunnel Repair Plans.............................................. 159
Utility Tunnel Conditions........................................ 155
Welcoming Remarks................................................ 141
West Refrigeration Plant Project................................. 162
Challenges................................................... 162
CAPITOL GUIDE BOARD
Budget Request................................................... 218
Capitol Visitor Center Opening................................... 219
Certificate of Occupancy......................................... 221
Full-time Equivalents............................................ 220
Hiring for the Capitol Visitor Center............................ 220
Primary Function................................................. 217
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Budgetary Analysis of Draft Legislation.......................... 312
One Percent Rescission........................................... 311
Preparation of Reports to Congress............................... 311
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Additional Committee Questions................................... 260
Background on Missile Defense Article............................ 225
Band II Restructuring............................................ 253
Calculating the Total Employee Cost to the Government............ 250
Changes to the Government Accountability Office's Pay System in
the Past Year.................................................. 252
Comparative Analysis of the Government Accountability Office's
Supply-Demand Imbalance........................................ 257
Cost for 50 Additional Full-time Equivalents..................... 249
Criteria for Coming On and Off the Government Accountability
Office's High Risk List........................................ 260
Early Retirements................................................ 251
Employee Perception of New Pay System............................ 254
Ensuring the Government Accountability Office Reports are
Impartial...................................................... 228
Government Accountability Office's (GAO's):
Fiscal Year 2005 Accomplishments............................. 231
Fiscal Year 2007:
Budget Request........................................... 232
Request to Support the Congress.......................... 235
High Risk:
List..................................................... 258
Program.................................................. 247
Market-based Pay System...................................... 252
Policy on Engagements Pending Litigation..................... 227
Quality Control Procedures................................... 227
History and Importance of the Government Accountability Office's
High Risk List................................................. 259
Lessons Learned:
From Missile Defense Engagement.............................. 225
In Implementing Market-based Pay............................. 256
Mr. Walker's Response to the New York Times Article.............. 224
New York Times Article on Missile Defense Program................ 223
Outcomes of Our Work and the Road Ahead.......................... 238
Performance, Results, and Plans.................................. 236
Potential for Government-wide Use of Market-based Pay............ 255
Prior Discussions With the Congress on Missile Defense........... 226
Staffing up to Reduce Backlogs................................... 256
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
Budget Priorities................................................ 302
Congressional Printing and Binding............................... 302
Electronic Passport Program...................................... 305
Employee Retraining.............................................. 305
Facility Relocation.............................................. 301
Fiscal Year 2007 Request......................................... 300
Future of the Depository Library Program......................... 306
GPO Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Priorities................... 302
Revolving Fund................................................... 304
Salaries and Expenses............................................ 303
Top challenges................................................... 302
2005 Results..................................................... 298
Use of GPO Training Funds........................................ 305
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Acquisitions Budget Request...................................... 3
Additional Committee Questions................................... 45
Analog-Digital Transition........................................ 40
Architect of the Capitol--Library of Congress Buildings and
Grounds........................................................ 8
Building the Library for the Future.............................. 6
Capitol Visitor Center........................................... 41
Cassette Machine Replacement..................................... 39
Celebration of American Creativity............................... 42
Congressional Research Service Realignment.......................23, 48
Savings...................................................... 28
Consultation With Congressional Research Service Staff........... 29
Copyright:
Deposits Facility............................................ 21
Records Preservation......................................... 46
Reengineering Program........................................ 31
Digital:
Competencies................................................. 47
Talking Books:
Audit.................................................... 41
Program.................................................. 38
Director's Report--Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing Changes, November 3,
2005........................................................... 56
Federal Agency Overhead.......................................... 21
Fee Service Activities........................................... 49
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request..................................18, 25
Future Fee Increase.............................................. 19
GENPAC........................................................... 45
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).................... 20
And Library Planning......................................... 21
Impact of Retirements............................................ 31
Introduction of Inspector General................................ 22
Library of Congress.............................................. 4
Logistics Center................................................. 4
Cost......................................................... 19
Review.......................................................20, 22
Management Initiatives........................................... 26
National Audio-Visual Conservation Center--Culpeper.............. 3
Status....................................................... 32
National Audio-Visual Conservation Center--Packard Contribution.. 33
Open World Leadership Center..................................... 9
Open World Leadership Program.................................... 44
Open World Strategic Plan........................................ 44
Options for Displaced Employees.................................. 29
Other Budget Priorities.......................................... 3
Partnerships With National Libraries............................. 43
Performance Measurement.......................................... 34
Proposed Changes to Legislative Language......................... 8
Reengineering Project Delays..................................... 32
Research Agenda.................................................. 25
Results-based Decisionmaking..................................... 37
Retirement Incentives............................................ 29
Review of Copyright Office Work and Accomplishments.............. 14
Technology and Staffing.......................................... 24
The Library of Congress of Today................................. 5
The Library's:
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request.............................. 6
Funding Priorities........................................... 6
Workforce Transformation......................................2, 30, 46
World Digital Library............................................ 43
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
Air Sampling..................................................... 289
Architect of the Capitol Plan to Remedy Tunnel Issues............ 282
Asbestos Issues in the Tunnels and Vaults as of May 2, 2006...... 284
Biennial Safety and Health Inspections........................... 277
Complaint Against Architect of the Capitol About the Tunnels..... 281
Dispute Resolution............................................... 272
Distance Between Egress Points................................... 290
Educating our Constituency....................................... 273
Findings by Risk Assessment Code................................. 277
Fire Alarm System in the Capitol Visitor Center.................. 292
First Office of Compliance Complaint Under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act.......................................... 278
Management Support............................................... 273
New FTE Positions Requested...................................... 270
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Approved Methods
for Abating Asbestos........................................... 288
Safety and Health Enforcement.................................... 272
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE BOARD
Accolade:
For U.S. Capitol Police Department........................... 204
To Departing Chief Gainer.................................... 200
Capitol Police General Counsel Discussion........................ 208
Chief Administrative Officer:
Action Plan.................................................. 210
Responsibilities............................................. 209
Discussion on:
Comp Time Balance Reduction.................................. 207
New Police Chief Selection Status............................ 213
Explanation of Fiscal Year 2007 Increases........................ 204
Implementation of New Financial Management System................ 211
Inspector General Selection Status............................... 214
Library of Congress:
Attrition and Other New Position Requests.................... 205
Merge Progress............................................... 207
Master Training Plan--Capitol Police............................. 214
Nonpersonnel Increases........................................... 205
Reduction in Police Overtime Explained........................... 206
Screening Vehicles at Library of Congress........................ 208
Summary of Remaining Chief Administrative Officer Initiatives.... 211
Tiger Team and Dignitary Protection Division New Positions
Discussed...................................................... 206
U.S. SENATE
Office of the Secretary
Administrative Offices........................................... 105
Capitol Visitor Center........................................... 81
Continuity of Operations and Emergency Preparedness Planning..... 81
Disbursing Office Information Technology......................... 99
Federal Election Commission Online Filing........................ 140
Financial Operations: Disbursing Office.......................... 90
Implementing Mandated Systems.................................... 79
Legislative Offices.............................................. 82
Lobbying Disclosure Reports...................................... 138
Maintaining and Improving Current and Historic Legislative,
Financial and Administrative Services.......................... 82
New Technology in the Senate..................................... 138
Presenting the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request................... 79
Study of Senate Staff Pay........................................ 139
Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
Challenges for Next Year......................................... 181
Custodial Workers for the Senate Capitol Visitor Center Expansion
Space.......................................................... 195
Guiding Principals............................................... 169
Information Technology: A Strategy for Security and Customer
Service........................................................ 175
Mail:
Processing Facility.......................................... 197
Safety....................................................... 188
Operations and Support: Consistently Delivering Excellent Service 180
Security and Emergency Preparedness.............................. 196
Security and Preparedness: Protecting the Senate and Planning for
the Unknown.................................................... 173
Sergeant at Arms Position Justification--Fiscal Year 2007........ 189
Staffing Increases.............................................188, 194
Strategic:
Plan......................................................... 169
Planning..................................................... 198
Telephone System Replacement..................................... 196
Vendor Deliveries................................................ 197
-